Liberal and Watered Down Catholic Theology

[zach_dunn]

Hi all,

I’m not sure if this is the correct place to put this, but I just need people to talk to. I’m currently attending the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. In this first semester, I’m taking the very beginning required theology course: The Christian Theological Tradition. At first this class is seemingly harmless, a good introduction to the Christian faith, but what I have noticed is that this is supposed to be some kind of “ecumenical” class. This might not seem like a bad thing, but this is where the watered-down-ness is, I went to a Catholic school hoping to get a Catholic theological education. But in these classes the department tries as hard as they can to not teach any specific view, only throwing out views to be considered by the students. They even go so far as to have Lutheran and even Mennonites teaching theology! This isn’t so much a problem since they are not teaching anything specifically Catholic but this just goes to show that being Catholic isn’t all that important to Catholic universities and theologians anymore (well, at least this school).

This beginning class is supposed to be a very broad over view, extending as far back to the Babylonian Enuma Elish and up to the present day. We have just reached the end of Scripture, and I’m telling you I cannot take much more of this. The fact that the Scriptural Theology of this school is very liberal would not be as bad if they did not teach their beliefs as fact rather than one of many opinions, I know I just said above that I dislike that they give out opinions, but that’s more about doctrine rather than something that is highly suspect like the historicity of Scripture. As an example, the school teaches Markan Priority and Q de facto, I understand this as liberal theology and not very traditional. If it is please correct me.

Also, and this may simply be my professor, I have been taught essentially “Jesus Seminar” type things, basically that words attributed to Jesus in the gospel are not really His actual words but teachings that the writers remember, etc. Another thing along these lines is the distorted belief of inspiration they teach. Essentially what I was taught was that yes, there are contradictions in the Bible but that’s okay because God inspires the authors to write truth about faith and morals “in their own human way”, I do not understand this to be the orthodox position at all, am I alone?

If given time I could probably multiply the examples but I’m writing this quick because I need to know what exactly are the orthodox positions on these issues and evidence thereof so that I might talk to my professor about them sometime. I’m very confused by all of this! Thank you for all your help!

 

[SunnaB16]

Hi all…

This beginning class is supposed to be a very broad over view, extending as far back to the Babylonian Enuma Elish and up to the present day. We have just reached the end of Scripture, and I’m telling you I cannot take much more of this. The fact that the Scriptural Theology of this school is very liberal would not be as bad if they did not teach their beliefs as fact rather than one of many opinions, I know I just said above that I dislike that they give out opinions, but that’s more about doctrine rather than something that is highly suspect like the historicity of Scripture. As an example, the school teaches Markan Priority and Q de facto, I understand this as liberal theology and not very traditional. If it is please correct me.

Markan priority and Q are attempts to undermine Catholicism. The following link is to a conversation between Karl Keating and Scott Hahn. The whole interview is worth reading; but if you`re short of time, scroll down to: “Bismarck promotes historical criticism”.

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9609fea1.asp

Also, and this may simply be my professor, I have been taught essentially “Jesus Seminar” type things, basically that words attributed to Jesus in the gospel are not really His actual words but teachings that the writers remember, etc. Another thing along these lines is the distorted belief of inspiration they teach. Essentially what I was taught was that yes, there are contradictions in the Bible but that’s okay because God inspires the authors to write truth about faith and morals “in their own human way”, I do not understand this to be the orthodox position at all, am I alone?

Avoid anything put out by the so-called “Jesus Seminar” like the proverbial plague!

 

[patg]

Also, and this may simply be my professor, I have been taught essentially “Jesus Seminar” type things, basically that words attributed to Jesus in the gospel are not really His actual words but teachings that the writers remember, etc. Another thing along these lines is the distorted belief of inspiration they teach. Essentially what I was taught was that yes, there are contradictions in the Bible but that’s okay because God inspires the authors to write truth about faith and morals “in their own human way”, I do not understand this to be the orthodox position at all, am I alone?

You are not alone but you are also not exactly in line with what the church really teaches.

This is all very close to the church position (depending on exactly what was said). For reference you should read the *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and *Dei Verbum *a dogmatic statement on divine revelation (both available online). The statments made above are very close references to statements in these documents. I haven’t heard of Pope Paul VI being referred to as a liberal who waters down church teaching on scripture.

 

[zarthan]

Hi all,

I’m not sure if this is the correct place to put this, but I just need people to talk to. I’m currently attending the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. In this first semester, I’m taking the very beginning required theology course: The Christian Theological Tradition. At first this class is seemingly harmless, a good introduction to the Christian faith, but what I have noticed is that this is supposed to be some kind of “ecumenical” class. This might not seem like a bad thing, but this is where the watered-down-ness is, I went to a Catholic school hoping to get a Catholic theological education. But in these classes the department tries as hard as they can to not teach any specific view, only throwing out views to be considered by the students. They even go so far as to have Lutheran and even Mennonites teaching theology! This isn’t so much a problem since they are not teaching anything specifically Catholic but this just goes to show that being Catholic isn’t all that important to Catholic universities and theologians anymore (well, at least this school).

This beginning class is supposed to be a very broad over view, extending as far back to the Babylonian Enuma Elish and up to the present day. We have just reached the end of Scripture, and I’m telling you I cannot take much more of this. The fact that the Scriptural Theology of this school is very liberal would not be as bad if they did not teach their beliefs as fact rather than one of many opinions, I know I just said above that I dislike that they give out opinions, but that’s more about doctrine rather than something that is highly suspect like the historicity of Scripture. As an example, the school teaches Markan Priority and Q de facto, I understand this as liberal theology and not very traditional. If it is please correct me.

Also, and this may simply be my professor, I have been taught essentially “Jesus Seminar” type things, basically that words attributed to Jesus in the gospel are not really His actual words but teachings that the writers remember, etc. Another thing along these lines is the distorted belief of inspiration they teach. Essentially what I was taught was that yes, there are contradictions in the Bible but that’s okay because God inspires the authors to write truth about faith and morals “in their own human way”, I do not understand this to be the orthodox position at all, am I alone?

If given time I could probably multiply the examples but I’m writing this quick because I need to know what exactly are the orthodox positions on these issues and evidence thereof so that I might talk to my professor about them sometime. I’m very confused by all of this! Thank you for all your help!

Zach: Thanks, for sharing your qualms over the context and the teaching that you are receiving in your theology class. The former dean of the law school of the university of St. Thomas became a priest after his wife died, and is now serving God in the prisons. So, I would say there is some good that is coming out of the University. There is also the seminary.

Catholic Answers is a good resource to learn the orthodoxy of your faith. If you want orthodox teaching of Sunday’s scripture readings you can meditate on the one’s that are given on this forum. I think most of the veteran’s of this forum will give you orthodox answers to your questions. Pray and ask God what He is asking of you at the University, He might be asking you to be a light for Him.

(Someone I know is a freshman at the University, may I share your post with him?)

May God keep you in the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Bookcat]

Only scanned the question…got to do some work…but here…

ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcgospl.htm

and read “Jesus of Nazareth” by Pope Benedict XVI

 

[sambos671]

Hi all,

I’m not sure if this is the correct place to put this, but I just need people to talk to. I’m currently attending the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. In this first semester, I’m taking the very beginning required theology course: The Christian Theological Tradition. At first this class is seemingly harmless, a good introduction to the Christian faith, but what I have noticed is that this is supposed to be some kind of “ecumenical” class. This might not seem like a bad thing, but this is where the watered-down-ness is, I went to a Catholic school hoping to get a Catholic theological education. But in these classes the department tries as hard as they can to not teach any specific view, only throwing out views to be considered by the students. They even go so far as to have Lutheran and even Mennonites teaching theology! This isn’t so much a problem since they are not teaching anything specifically Catholic but this just goes to show that being Catholic isn’t all that important to Catholic universities and theologians anymore (well, at least this school).

This beginning class is supposed to be a very broad over view, extending as far back to the Babylonian Enuma Elish and up to the present day. We have just reached the end of Scripture, and I’m telling you I cannot take much more of this. The fact that the Scriptural Theology of this school is very liberal would not be as bad if they did not teach their beliefs as fact rather than one of many opinions, I know I just said above that I dislike that they give out opinions, but that’s more about doctrine rather than something that is highly suspect like the historicity of Scripture. As an example, the school teaches Markan Priority and Q de facto, I understand this as liberal theology and not very traditional. If it is please correct me.

Also, and this may simply be my professor, I have been taught essentially “Jesus Seminar” type things, basically that words attributed to Jesus in the gospel are not really His actual words but teachings that the writers remember, etc. Another thing along these lines is the distorted belief of inspiration they teach. Essentially what I was taught was that yes, there are contradictions in the Bible but that’s okay because God inspires the authors to write truth about faith and morals “in their own human way”, I do not understand this to be the orthodox position at all, am I alone?

If given time I could probably multiply the examples but I’m writing this quick because I need to know what exactly are the orthodox positions on these issues and evidence thereof so that I might talk to my professor about them sometime. I’m very confused by all of this! Thank you for all your help!

Please forgive me if you take offense to this. However, as I was reading your post it seemed to me that you sound a lot like the Catholic Version of King James Only Fundalmentalist. Who in their studies are just as perterbed at finding their schools teach things from a Catholic perspective. I found it humorous.

To comment specifically on your post I find that truth is truth. And it may not always be what we want it to be. The fact is that the bible is a library of books containing different kind of liturature. The best way to view literature is in comparison of other liturature writen in the same time period and thus Genesis contemperary literature is the Enumma Elish. Comparison seem reasonable. However, this doesn’t take away from Gods inspriation for the document. Many seeming contradictions generally aren’t and simple errors of transcriptions has not changed the message or the import of the Sacred Texts. What must be settled for you is your faith. I encourage you to be certain of your faith but not to be unpliable in learning.

 

[javasumatra]

Hi all,

I’m not sure if this is the correct place to put this, but I just need people to talk to. I’m currently attending the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. In this first semester, I’m taking the very beginning required theology course: The Christian Theological Tradition. At first this class is seemingly harmless, a good introduction to the Christian faith, but what I have noticed is that this is supposed to be some kind of “ecumenical” class. This might not seem like a bad thing, but this is where the watered-down-ness is, I went to a Catholic school hoping to get a Catholic theological education. But in these classes the department tries as hard as they can to not teach any specific view, only throwing out views to be considered by the students. They even go so far as to have Lutheran and even Mennonites teaching theology! This isn’t so much a problem since they are not teaching anything specifically Catholic but this just goes to show that being Catholic isn’t all that important to Catholic universities and theologians anymore (well, at least this school).

This beginning class is supposed to be a very broad over view, extending as far back to the Babylonian Enuma Elish and up to the present day. We have just reached the end of Scripture, and I’m telling you I cannot take much more of this. The fact that the Scriptural Theology of this school is very liberal would not be as bad if they did not teach their beliefs as fact rather than one of many opinions, I know I just said above that I dislike that they give out opinions, but that’s more about doctrine rather than something that is highly suspect like the historicity of Scripture. As an example, the school teaches Markan Priority and Q de facto, I understand this as liberal theology and not very traditional. If it is please correct me.

Also, and this may simply be my professor, I have been taught essentially “Jesus Seminar” type things, basically that words attributed to Jesus in the gospel are not really His actual words but teachings that the writers remember, etc. Another thing along these lines is the distorted belief of inspiration they teach. Essentially what I was taught was that yes, there are contradictions in the Bible but that’s okay because God inspires the authors to write truth about faith and morals “in their own human way”, I do not understand this to be the orthodox position at all, am I alone?

If given time I could probably multiply the examples but I’m writing this quick because I need to know what exactly are the orthodox positions on these issues and evidence thereof so that I might talk to my professor about them sometime. I’m very confused by all of this! Thank you for all your help!

Well, unfortunately, we can’t fully help you with this, parts of it you will have to make judgements based on where you are.

The title of the class suggests learning about Christian Theological Tradition. What does that mean? learning the different christian traditions? learning THE Theological Tradition?
those two are very different, what is the purpose of the class.

If the intent is to teach different christian traditions, then perhaps it is simply uncomfortable because you are being exposed to error in a catholic college, but the purpose of the course is to be able to understand and recognize other traditions, what they have right and wrong.

If however, it is supposed to teach THE Christian Tradition, you may have a problem. It would then appear there is a teaching that multiple paths lead to the same God and one tradition isn’t necessarily better than another, just different.
If this is the point of the class, you are in a bad spot. You can question and make challenge. you would need to be able to take the positions being offered, challenge them and offer objective church teachings and documents to hold your position. Alot of work to be sure. or find another college. This would need to be your call based on what your situation is.

So, it appears everything just depends.

Good luck with it though.

 

[amgp]

Hello, Zach.
You are not alone in your concerns regarding what you’re being taught. There is much taught at UST that is definitely not from a Catholic perspective. We have many friends who currently attend, and who have attended UST. Your observations are accurate and in line with what we’ve been told by others. Like most “Catholic” universities, UST is very much a secular university with pockets of Catholicism found here and there.

Twenty years ago, Pope John Paul II issued Ex corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church), an Apostolic Constitution that defined Roman Catholic colleges and created guidelines to assist them in fulfilling their missions. I’m sure you’re aware that UST refuses to have the staff of their theology department agree to the mandatum. (According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “The mandatum is fundamentally an acknowledgement by church authority that a Catholic professor of a theological discipline is teaching within the full communion of the Catholic Church.”)

According to Canon Law, every Catholic theology professor must receive the mandatum from his local bishop. Catholic colleges, however, are not obligated to require the mandatum, and most colleges will not reveal which professors have received it. Six years ago, UST and Archbishop Flynn refused to satisfactorily answer questions and letters from scores of parents regarding UST and the mandatum. The Archbishop eventually replied that he would no longer accept correspondence from any of these parents, and that the letters would be returned to them unopened (I personally read his letter). Then, in 2007, UST severed its ties with the St. Paul Archdiocese, and removed the bylaw that maintained the sitting archbishop of St. Paul-Minneapolis as the Vicar General and Priest President of the University.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07112103.html

I’m not telling you any of this to slam UST, but to let you know that you’re not alone in your quest to find true Catholic teaching at UST. There is hope. The Catholic Studies program at UST is excellent, and very Catholic. If you haven’t done so, please contact a staff member involved with the Catholic Studies program. They can perhaps give you the best advice and answer your concerns. You may also want to contact students on “the Catholic floor” of the dorms at UST (if you don’t already live there). I know that these students share many of the same concerns as you.

God bless you in your search for truth.

 

[zach_dunn]

Please forgive me if you take offense to this. However, as I was reading your post it seemed to me that you sound a lot like the Catholic Version of King James Only Fundalmentalist. Who in their studies are just as perterbed at finding their schools teach things from a Catholic perspective. I found it humorous.

I’m glad I gave you a chuckle. But no, I’m not offended, and I fail to see how I am being “the Catholic Version of King James Only Fundamentalist”, from what I’ve learned in my time here and in my own research is that things like Markan Priority, Q, and what I was taught about inspiration are NOT traditional Catholic teaching. Please, I would love if you could provide historical evidence to the contrary but I really do not think there is any.

To comment specifically on your post I find that truth is truth. And it may not always be what we want it to be.

And the same goes for you, no? But I assume (please correct me if I’m wrong) that you are working from what I call the “Liberal” viewpoint, correct? Therefore “truth is truth” really means “truth is what I believe” or “truth is what modern theologians teach” which I definitely do not believe to be the case.

The fact is that the bible is a library of books containing different kind of liturature. The best way to view literature is in comparison of other liturature writen in the same time period and thus Genesis contemperary literature is the Enumma Elish. Comparison seem reasonable.

I do not recall saying any of this, I said the course stretched back to the Enuma Elish but I never said it was wrong to compare them. What I believe is wrong with this part of the course, is when they let things like the Enuma Elish actually dictate what the Bible says. I was taught that God really did not create the universe out of “nothing”. This was taught for two reasons: 1) The translation that they make us use (The New Revised Standard Version With Apocrypha by Oxford University Press, it’s really a hair-ripping translation) translates the first first of Genesis like so: “In the beginning WHEN God created the heavens and the earth.” They say this word “when” implies that there was stuff there before God created and instead of created he “molded” the universe. Then here’s the kicker and second reason: This is similar to the Enuma Elish, therefore it must be true!

This is kind of off topic but I was also taught that Jews prior to the Babylonian Captivity were henotheistic, meaning they believed many gods existed but they focused on just one. This belief is actually based off of the first commandment, the fact that Yahweh talks about other gods mean that there are actual gods . . . is this orthodox in any sense of the word, or more over TRUE in any sense of the word?

However, this doesn’t take away from Gods inspriation for the document. Many seeming contradictions generally aren’t and simple errors of transcriptions has not changed the message or the import of the Sacred Texts.

But he’s telling us that there are actual contradictions in it! And you are right that “contradictions” between numbers and such do not change the message of the Bible, but the Catholic Church holds that

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

This is definitely NOT what I was taught in class.

What must be settled for you is your faith. I encourage you to be certain of your faith but not to be unpliable in learning.

I’m not having a closed mind, I’m just concerned. I’m paying attention and actually learning things considering I’ve gotten all A’s so far, I just have a pretty good radar in my head that can detect liberalism . . . >.>

 

[sambos671]

I’m glad I gave you a chuckle. But no, I’m not offended, and I fail to see how I am being “the Catholic Version of King James Only Fundamentalist”, from what I’ve learned in my time here and in my own research is that things like Markan Priority, Q, and what I was taught about inspiration are NOT traditional Catholic teaching. Please, I would love if you could provide historical evidence to the contrary but I really do not think there is any.

The Fundalmentalist I mention (and I came out of that group btw) hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture through out. Though they don’t apply it to John 6. Our Catholic faith teaches us there are several tenses with which to understand the scriptures and this is key. How is the creation story, for instance to taken? Certainly our faith holds to actual person of Adam and Eve. No problem there but how about other things in that book? Giants? Who what when where? ETC… We can learn what is most likely meant by comparision with similar liturature from the same culture. Of which the Summerian Culture is the one from which Abraham came. I’m not sure if I come from a liberal perspective or not. I tend to be conservative but I might catagorize certain things differently. As for Markan priority I don’t really seeing that as being much of an issue it certain (and by tradition) was the first gospel writen. Q is just a theory because it seems that there was a warehouse of the sayings of Jesus from which the Gospel writers quoted. Scholars think it was written down or was it from the apostles memory passed on orally? Not really sure. But there is no evidence for it save from the synoptic gospels similarities. Which can also fit into Markian priority because it seems reasonable if Mark was writen in Rome under the tutalage of Peter that copies would have been wide spread and the synopitc writer could use a copy to help expand their own records. Not really a big issue since tradition holds to it. As far as Q take it or leave it to be honest it does nothing one way or another for the faith.

And the same goes for you, no?

Absolutely, but I believe I’m willing to look at things openly since I’m a Catholic revert. It was the study of scripture that brought me back.

But I assume (please correct me if I’m wrong) that you are working from what I call the “Liberal” viewpoint, correct? Therefore “truth is truth” really means “truth is what I believe” or “truth is what modern theologians teach” which I definitely do not believe to be the case.

No not necissarily I read the church fathers as well. Truth is truth Modern theologians can be wrong Just like some feel the Bible source theory is off (the JEPD source view).

I do not recall saying any of this, I said the course stretched back to the Enuma Elish but I never said it was wrong to compare them.

Good.

What I believe is wrong with this part of the course, is when they let things like the Enuma Elish actually dictate what the Bible says.

I don’t think any would support that view. I think what is being taught is that the Enuma Elish can give insite to what the bible is saying. Not dictate it.

I was taught that God really did not create the universe out of “nothing”. This was taught for two reasons:

I’m with you on this one and Thomas Aquinas. The universe was created Ex Nihilo.

1. The translation that they make us use (The New Revised Standard Version With Apocrypha by Oxford University Press, it’s really a hair-ripping translation) translates the first first of Genesis like so: “In the beginning WHEN God created the heavens and the earth.” They say this word “when” implies that there was stuff there before God created and instead of created he “molded” the universe. Then here’s the kicker and second reason: This is similar to the Enuma Elish, therefore it must be true!

the NSRV is a good translation but note its put together by textual critics who wanted the language to be more readable than the ESV. To really make a point you must compare the MSS and the LXX texts. Rather than soley relying on English you should compare it to the ESV and Also the CAB. If they want to come to this conclusion its good to know their point of view but the Catholic Church doesn’t teach it.

 

[sambos671]

Continued.

This is kind of off topic but I was also taught that Jews prior to the Babylonian Captivity were henotheistic, meaning they believed many gods existed but they focused on just one.

Yeah this is where the JEPD theory comes into play and the Torah was losely put together during the captivity but not attributed to Moses. Which makes Torah and the Naviim and the Ketuvim very likely stories and nothing true to them at all. Also good to know people believe this but they have certain archeolgical issues to deal with first including the dead sea scrolls, etc… finds in the Holy Land and the gospel themselves.

This belief is actually based off of the first commandment, the fact that Yahweh talks about other gods mean that there are actual gods . . . is this orthodox in any sense of the word, or more over TRUE in any sense of the word?

Not Catholic Orthodoxy. However, I listen to what they have to say and study it for myself. And there are plenty of writings indicating that there are issues with this view. The primary problem is they are starting from the Position that scriptures are not the inspired word of God and so they make assosiations that may not really exist because of similarities certainly in a college environment you can discent from that view and offer your own as long as its well researched and reasoned.

But he’s telling us that there are actual contradictions in it!

There are transcription errors but that is not the same as contradictions.

This is definitely NOT what I was taught in class.

Well, they are expanding your mind and given you a direction to go. Attempt to disprove the teacher. I did that in college and it brought about good discussion and raised my teacher’s opinion of me. However, it is what they are teaching. And they are probably doing so because 1) they believe it and 2) you haven’t been exposed to it.

I’m not having a closed mind, I’m just concerned. I’m paying attention and actually learning things considering I’ve gotten all A’s so far, I just have a pretty good radar in my head that can detect liberalism . . . >.>

Gjo beyond the requirements and provide discenting position. Especially in your papers.

 

[Axion]

Well, they are expanding your mind and given you a direction to go. Attempt to disprove the teacher. I did that in college and it brought about good discussion and raised my teacher’s opinion of me. However, it is what they are teaching. And they are probably doing so because 1) they believe it and 2) you haven’t been exposed to it.

The problem is that this sort of liberalism, taught as fact, is VERY damaging. Particularly when it is presented under the guise of Catholic teaching. It is subversive in that people not strong or knowledgeable in the faith are dismayed and misled.

What tends to happen is what can be seen in the NAB and NJB notes, where the hstoricity of the biblical accounts is constanly undermined, by presenting speculation (the books were forged later by editors) as fact. In addition traditional Catholic interpretations of the books are ignored, and in their place is subversively substituted liberal-protestant interpretations.

Both are extremely undermining of Catholic faith. (And Markan priority ISN’T traditional catholic teaching by any means.) The theory behind Markan priority is that the other gospels were embroidered copies of Mark, written by people other than the Apostles, many decades, if not centuries, later. But if we cannot rely on the truth of the Gospel record, or the integrity of the writers, then EVERYTHING can be challenged. Was mary really a Virgin? did Jesus perform any real miracles? Was what He said real, or something made up much later by mendacious falsifiers?

So iss the whole faith successfully undermined.

 

[TMC]

There is nothing anti-Catholic or particularly liberal about Markan primacy or the Q theory. They are theories and one can take them or leave them, but many (if not most) Catholic theologians accept one or both. The old saw about these theories being invented to undermine Catholicism holds no water - its just another groundless conspiracy theory.

 

[SnakeMauler]

I have a question, do Fundamentalists who “take the Bible literally” literally cut off their hands when they sin? “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off”.

 

[simspt]

Hi all,

I’m not sure if this is the correct place to put this, but I just need people to talk to. I’m currently attending the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. In this first semester, I’m taking the very beginning required theology course: The Christian Theological Tradition. At first this class is seemingly harmless, a good introduction to the Christian faith, but what I have noticed is that this is supposed to be some kind of “ecumenical” class. This might not seem like a bad thing, but this is where the watered-down-ness is, I went to a Catholic school hoping to get a Catholic theological education. But in these classes the department tries as hard as they can to not teach any specific view, only throwing out views to be considered by the students. They even go so far as to have Lutheran and even Mennonites teaching theology! This isn’t so much a problem since they are not teaching anything specifically Catholic but this just goes to show that being Catholic isn’t all that important to Catholic universities and theologians anymore (well, at least this school).

This beginning class is supposed to be a very broad over view, extending as far back to the Babylonian Enuma Elish and up to the present day. We have just reached the end of Scripture, and I’m telling you I cannot take much more of this. The fact that the Scriptural Theology of this school is very liberal would not be as bad if they did not teach their beliefs as fact rather than one of many opinions, I know I just said above that I dislike that they give out opinions, but that’s more about doctrine rather than something that is highly suspect like the historicity of Scripture. As an example, the school teaches Markan Priority and Q de facto, I understand this as liberal theology and not very traditional. If it is please correct me.

Also, and this may simply be my professor, I have been taught essentially “Jesus Seminar” type things, basically that words attributed to Jesus in the gospel are not really His actual words but teachings that the writers remember, etc. Another thing along these lines is the distorted belief of inspiration they teach. Essentially what I was taught was that yes, there are contradictions in the Bible but that’s okay because God inspires the authors to write truth about faith and morals “in their own human way”, I do not understand this to be the orthodox position at all, am I alone?

If given time I could probably multiply the examples but I’m writing this quick because I need to know what exactly are the orthodox positions on these issues and evidence thereof so that I might talk to my professor about them sometime. I’m very confused by all of this! Thank you for all your help!

Z,
Don’t freak out. When I was an undergrad I took as a general education requirment an elective course titled Life and Times of Jesus. I went into the class with so much naiveness thinking I would be learning about Jesus from a Evangelical conservative perspective. Instead the Professor gave us Barth and Bultmann to read which for a lower division undergrad course was mind blowing. Then by total chance at another university i got taught by a Jesus seminar member that was very pro-gnostic (again i was taking a elective course, not even my major). Both professors presented material i found very challenging and in retrospect am thankfull. I guess the point im trying to make is dont be surprised when your presuppositions and interpretations are challenged, thats called education not indoctrination which has its place (e.g RCIA which i am in right now). It will make you a better Catholic IMO. Happy studying!!

 

[zach_dunn]

There is nothing anti-Catholic or particularly liberal about Markan primacy or the Q theory. They are theories and one can take them or leave them, but many (if not most) Catholic theologians accept one or both. The old saw about these theories being invented to undermine Catholicism holds no water - its just another groundless conspiracy theory.

I haven’t said that Markan Priority or Q or any of that was “anti-Catholic”, I am simply saying that it is not traditional Catholic teaching. I’m not a conspiracy theorist (I did not you that you said I am, I’m just pointing this out) and I do not believe that these theories were “invented to undermine Catholicism”, that’s silly. I have an issue with this for two reasons:

1. 
   *]These are not traditional Catholic teachings
   *]Theories, not matter what kind, should not be taught as FACT when it is truly only speculation

 

[zach_dunn]

Well, unfortunately, we can’t fully help you with this, parts of it you will have to make judgements based on where you are.

The title of the class suggests learning about Christian Theological Tradition. What does that mean? learning the different christian traditions? learning THE Theological Tradition?
those two are very different, what is the purpose of the class.

If the intent is to teach different christian traditions, then perhaps it is simply uncomfortable because you are being exposed to error in a catholic college, but the purpose of the course is to be able to understand and recognize other traditions, what they have right and wrong.

If however, it is supposed to teach THE Christian Tradition, you may have a problem. It would then appear there is a teaching that multiple paths lead to the same God and one tradition isn’t necessarily better than another, just different.
If this is the point of the class, you are in a bad spot. You can question and make challenge. you would need to be able to take the positions being offered, challenge them and offer objective church teachings and documents to hold your position. Alot of work to be sure. or find another college. This would need to be your call based on what your situation is.

So, it appears everything just depends.

Good luck with it though.

Yes, the class is about THE Christian Theological Tradition. There is only one Christian religion with many denominations, this is about one tradition.

 

[SunnaB16]

I haven’t said that Markan Priority or Q or any of that was “anti-Catholic”…

***…and I do not ***believe that these theories were “invented to undermine Catholicism”, that’s silly.

Scott Hahn probably knows more about it than you or i do!

Did you bother to read the interview?

Ditto to TMC.

 

[zach_dunn]

Scott Hahn probably knows more about it than you or i do!

Did you bother to read the interview?

Ditto to TMC.

The article says nothing to the effect that the theories were created solely to undermine Catholicism, that may be the reason the German theologians popularized it as is hinted at in the article, but not necessarily why they were created. As a matter of fact, Hahn says that historical criticism, which brought about these theories anyway, was created essentially at the Treaty of Westphalia which was signed by both Catholics and Protestants.

 

[SunnaB16]

The article says nothing to the effect that the theories were created solely to undermine Catholicism, that may be the reason the German theologians popularized it as is hinted at in the article, but not necessarily why they were created. As a matter of fact, Hahn says that historical criticism, which brought about these theories anyway, was created essentially at the Treaty of Westphalia which was signed by both Catholics and Protestants.

You ashed about so-called Markan priority and Q, and i provided a link. My only concern was with Mark and Q: youre the one who managed to bring historical criticism into it. If you want to nitpick, i should have said: "Markan priority and Q are used to undermine Catholicisms claim of papal infallibility". Happy?

To quote Scott:
Farmer points to the political circumstances surrounding the Kulturkampf, with the definition of papal infallibility in 1870, and Bismarck`s reaction…

At the time all theology professors were paid by the state, so the shortcut to promotion was by supporting a theory that undermined the proof text used by the papacy to justify its infallibility, Matthew 16:17-19.

If Mark`s Gospel is first, then the historical reliability of the famous Petrine primacy text is more easily attacked - indeed, scholars were denying its historicity, since it was politically correct to do so.
More than just a hint!

Regarding conspiracy theories: are you and TMC saying that Scott Hahn and Karl Keating “fell for it”?

Contemporary Biblical “scholarship” leaves more than a bit to be desired. The “Jesus Seminar” is just one example of many. The truth will triumph, though.

Anyway, it`s your thread… Once bitten; twice shy.