- Status
.
D
djeter
Guest
No where in the post by Fr. John Behr, or in my comments for that matter, do we recommend theologians who are “famous” or “exalted.” I simply pointed out that many writers take up theological issues and repeat what other theologians had previously written. No great accomplishment and they are not theologians. They are popularizers of the faith.
Some popularizers do theologize, for example Bishop Sheen and Fr. Guardini are two that have been mentioned.
Learn the difference and you might come to appreciate what theologians do when they theologize. The Fr. Behr essay (“What We Talk About When We Talk About God: The Discipline Of Theology” is a good place to start. There are 48 posts concerning theology on the site and by the time you wade through all of those you will grasp the meaning of the discipline
Taking someone to task for something they didn’t even write is mysterious.
dj
D
djeter
Guest
I note the number of “academic” articles in theological publications that Dr. Hahn has submitted. I was unfamiliar with these and presume that this is the space where he does theology. I didn’t mean to impugn his work but I was only familiar with his mass market offerings.
I think the “title” means a lot and I am in deep respect of Benedict XVI and others who do such work. Granted there are more than a few who mess up the field but “in the grand scheme of things” THAT proves or means nothing…
Z
ZIGGABITE
Guest
J.I Packer
D.A Carson
R.C Sproul
Gordon Wenham
John MacArthur
D.A Carson
R.C Sproul
Gordon Wenham
John MacArthur
C
curlycool89
Guest
Pope Benedict, hands down.
C
Cat
Guest
For those of you who don’t know, R.C. Sproul is a Protestant theologian of the Reformed Church, and founder of Ligonier ministries. My husband got interested in him because Sproul has done a lot of writing and speaking about “worship.” He is an advocate of traditional worship, and believes that a lot of the modern innovations aren’t appropriate for church.
My husband has many of Sproul’s CDs, and believes that he is an excellent theologian even for Catholics to listen to. I think a lot of traditionalist-leaning Catholics would probably enjoy R.C. Sproul.
What’s interesting about Sproul is that he really, truly knows and understand Catholic theology and gets it RIGHT when he speaks or writes. Many times, Protestants who argue against Catholicism are arguing against theologies that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach and has never taught. But Sproul gets Catholicism right. And he argues in FAVOR of many of the Catholic doctrines! Pretty cool for a Calvinist!
C
Cat
Guest
Forgive me for taking you to task about “exalted” theologians.
I personally think you’re getting over-involved in semantics. I would submit the suggestion that there are different kinds or “levels” of theologians, and that they are ALL theologians, meaning that they have a more extensive knowledge and understanding of theology than the typical person (like me).
I think that those theologians who are at the level of “popularizers” of the faith are extremely valuable, for they take what the “hidden” theologian writes and re-write or speak it in such as way as to make it accessible to regular people, both Christian and non-Christian.
Same for those theologians who are “apologists”.
You named NAMES (Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akins) and stated that these men are not theologians, but are popularizers of the faith.
As you saw from my post listing Hahn’s credentials, you were incorrect, and you did admit that and I’m glad. (I don’t know much about Jimmy Akins, but I’m guessing that someone else could probably prove you incorrect about Mr. Akins, too.)
Please allow me to offer a little “old lady advice.” When you make a statement about someone that turns out to be incorrect, unfortunately that cause people like ME who have seen a lot of “religious people” come and go, to have doubts about all the rest of your statements.
Perhaps that is unfair of me, because we all make mistakes, and I make a lot of them. You were at least good enough to admit your mistake, and that’s admirable and helps restore your credibility in MY eyes anyway. But I would be careful if I were you, especially when you name names. Make SURE of your facts, because anytime you make a mistake in something you write, it tends to cast doubt on everything else you write, and when you make a mistake about people who are still alive, they may come after you, or their friends and supporters may come after you!
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I thank Cat for mentioning Cavins. I am very, very hard to please when it comes to scripture scholars, as that is my field. Cavins just rocks when it comes to Biblical theology. His understanding of the theological dimensions of OT, and how to integrate that with the NT (and its kerygma), stand apart. Most Christian theologians, both Protestant and Catholic, do not adequately synthesize the two great books, because most do not see their integration, and how deliberate were the allusions to the OT by the evangelists. I see Cavins as a true theologian in that I believe he has a gift of the Spirit when it comes to wisdom/insight into God’s Word, which is simultaneously intellectual and spiritual.
The problem I have with Hahn is that he still seems to be forever in the “Aha” stage of “discovery” of essential theology which is not new at all to any Catholic with prior decent catechesis. He seems to think he’s presenting “new” ideas, and he forever gets “excited” about their “newness,” but they are definitely not new at all in the body of Catholic theology, even though they may be new to him.
I also concur with the praise by others of BXVI.
The problem I have with Hahn is that he still seems to be forever in the “Aha” stage of “discovery” of essential theology which is not new at all to any Catholic with prior decent catechesis. He seems to think he’s presenting “new” ideas, and he forever gets “excited” about their “newness,” but they are definitely not new at all in the body of Catholic theology, even though they may be new to him.
I also concur with the praise by others of BXVI.
S
Schism_hater
Guest
He died in 1995, but Yves Congar was the greatest Catholic theologian of the 20th century.
M
Mike30
Guest
The title means merely someone who thinks about and projects his own opinions about theology. Thats really about it. You only have to read the works of some theologians, Conger, Kung, Boff, Gutierrez, Scheelebix, hope I spelled that one right, etc. to realize that.
Whether or not their particular theories are correct, plausible or even non heretical is another matter entirely.
I too have great respect for men like Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI as theologians but to lump them under the same heading as someone like Scott Hahn is I think more than a little demening to the title theologian. For that reason I don’t really think the title in and of itself means a lot.
C
commenter
Guest
I don’t think he has a grasp of Catholic Theology. In one book (sorry I can’t reference at the moment) he described the Catholic view of the NT canon - alleging the Church claimed to have created the canon. This obviously doesn’t accurately depict Catholicism.
He rejected the so-called Catholic view, he said actually God created the canon, but the Church received the canon. An accurate depiction of Catholicism would be that God created the canon, and every believer who reads Scripture “receives” the canon. What is the role of the Church? The Church was the instrument through which God publicly communicated His will. Sproul, and evangelicals who quote his arguments, bends over backward to avoid any suggestion that the Magisterium was - IS - authoritative. By avoiding any hint that God used the Magisterium then, he avoids acknowledging it might still be an authoritative channel now.
D
Dies_Irae_1
Guest
Hans Kung
Karl Rahner
Cardinal Schönborn
Karl Rahner
Cardinal Schönborn
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
I’m going to bite on this one just because I think it’s a fun thread. I don’t know about “greatest theologians,” but my favorites are:
Fr. George Maloney, S.J.
Archbishop Joseph Raya
Dr. Scott Hahn (yes, he has done a great deal of academic theology)
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. (although he is mostly known for his work in liturgical history)
Fr. Alexander Schmemann
Joseph Jungmann
Fr. Raymond Brown, S.J.
Fr. Louis Bouyer, O.P.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI
N.T. Wright
Fr. George Maloney, S.J.
Archbishop Joseph Raya
Dr. Scott Hahn (yes, he has done a great deal of academic theology)
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. (although he is mostly known for his work in liturgical history)
Fr. Alexander Schmemann
Joseph Jungmann
Fr. Raymond Brown, S.J.
Fr. Louis Bouyer, O.P.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI
N.T. Wright
T
TRH1292
Guest
I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with you there at all. I was once a Presbyterian, and I have read many books by R.C. Sproul and listened to many hours of his lectures. I don’t believe R.C. Sproul represents Catholicism well at all. R.C. is known for being one of the most anti-Catholic theologians in existence, he almost caused a split between evangelicals because he said he no longer had a unity in the gospel with some other protestants because they had signed an ecumenical document with the Catholic Church. He is adamant that the Catholic Church is apostate, and Catholics are hell bound.
His teaching is a non stop lecture on Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and double predestination. I would not recommend any catholic to listen to him at all.
C
Cat
Guest
I don’t think most Catholics have time to listen to or read their own Catholic theologians, let alone Protestant theologians. I know I don’t! If there is a priority list, we Catholics should definitely listen to or read Catholic theology before Protestant theology!
(The only reason my husband has time to listen to so many CDs is that for years, he had a two hour daily commute to and from his work.)
The reason I think traditionalist-leaning Catholics would enjoy listening to Sproul is because he is an advocate for traditional worship styles and music.
And I didn’t say that Sproul was “pro-Catholic.” Heavens no! He’s extremely anti-Catholic–but at least he presents Catholicism correctly. He doesn’t argue against “worshiping statues” or “sacrificing Christ over and over again” like so many other Protestants do.
For Catholics who are into apologetics, there is a lot of value in reading and listening to ant-Catholic teachers, and Sproul would be a good choice because he’s not real easy to debate compared to some of the Protestant apologists who can be easily defeated by a well-educated Catholic child in a debate because they are not presenting Catholicism correctly. Sproul is a tougher act.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Assuming “our day” includes last century…
Benedict XVI
von Balthasar
Guardini
de Lubac
philosophers would be Gilson and Maritain.
Benedict XVI
von Balthasar
Guardini
de Lubac
philosophers would be Gilson and Maritain.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
I completely forgot von Balthasar and de Lubac, who are also two of my favorites.
Fr. Jean Corbon is also a favorite of mine, but primarily because he was a bi-ritual Dominican with faculties in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. Much of his writings are written from an Eastern/Melkite perspective.
T
TRH1292
Guest
I understand what you mean, and R.C. is an advocate for traditional worship - traditional reformed worship. Which is vastly different from a mass. It’s mostly very plain, pictures of Jesus or the virgin mary are a huge no no, and although I think Sproul is more tolerant of pictures than most Presbyterians, he still holds mass to be the ultimate blasphemy.
W
Wulfgar
Guest
Though he’s formally a philosopher by profession, I have to second this. Kreeft rocks!
T
triumphguy
Guest
Hans Urs von Balthasar
Joseph Ratzinger
Karl Rahner
Jean Vanier/ Henri Nouwen
Gustavo Gutiérrez
Joseph Ratzinger
Karl Rahner
Jean Vanier/ Henri Nouwen
Gustavo Gutiérrez
- Status