O
otjm
Guest
No, but I would be willing to put Theology of the Body alongside them.
- Status
S
Shiphrae
Guest
Thank you and God bless you!Here here. I’m on page 131.
God bless,
Ut
I’m rereading the book and close to the end for the second time. It is not an easy book to read. It is so complex! I plan to read it a third time (actually my husband and I are reading it together) but this time we will look up all the references to the Old Testament that are mentioned.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
It didn’t and it never will
Deacon Ed B
Deacon Ed B
C
catharina
Guest
deacon-ed, I’m sure you mean:
He didn’t and He never will.
He didn’t and He never will.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
you are correct
Deacon Ed B
Deacon Ed B
J
JMMK
Guest
I was wondering when someone would bring this up. I’ve been reading (and re-reading it to grasp some of the passages. I thought I had a good vocabulary till I read this book.). Both this book and Jesus of Nazareth were Christmas gifts and I’ve been loving every minute of both.
C
catharina
Guest
You’re welcome.
E
EmergencyOps
Guest
Y’all bring up some good thoughts. It seems like people have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when it comes to their faith. And yes, I’m a stickler for rules and direction (which is one of the reasons that the Church interests me). The head-in-the-sand approach by many Church leaders leaves me at a loss. For example, if abortion is excommunicable, why did the Church back down from excommunicating pro-abortion law-makers (the 2004 John Kerry debacle comes to mind) in the U.S. and other countries?Some of the things I’ve heard recently (not here) from “Catholics” has left me wondering if they really are. Some people seem to like to call themselves Catholic but actively work against the social and moral teachings of the Church.
-Mark
P
pnewton
Guest
He popped in my mind when I read the first post. I think that only time will tell and future generations will be the filter of what greatness stands the test of time and what is more dated for our time. I think JP II will go down as a great man, but not necessarily for his contribution to on-going theological thought, as much as his leadership. So much of what he wrote was pastoral and may only apply to the current generation.
Also, it is not only great thought of doctrinal development, but introducing new means of communication and new areas of evangelism. In the first category, Bishop Fulton Sheen comes to mind and the first great communicator of the modern era. Of the second, it remains to be seen, but surely those who can reach across denominational lines deserve some credit. Scott Hahn may stand the test of time. He is an excellent communicator and has been instrumental in the conversion of many.
D
drafdog
Guest
No one so far has answered the question of the OP regarding non-Aristotelian philosophers in the Church today. Further LilyM has opined that we should return to the situation of 2000 years ago.
2000 years ago the church was in its infancy and what we had was the product of story tellers and poets. We had no systematic theology, no sacramental theology (no recognized sacraments as such), no ecclesiology, no Christology, no canon of scripture. She contends that that situation was ideal. Good enough for then and good enough for now. Somehow I don’t think many here would agree with that.
I do think that the Church needs to lighten up on philosophers and theologians who are trying to develop systems to answer newer understandings of nature and reason. Our current arguments are based on natural philosophy which is out of date by some 1500 years. OP is correct that we need these men and women. But in order to benefit from their intelligence and wisdom the Church will need to open itself to free discussion and exploration. Aquinas is the product of 1200 years of struggle with Aristotelian philosophy. We need to allow a similar period of discussion and development today. The Office of the Inquisition (excuse me, the Office for the Doctrine of the Faith) will have to stop condemning non-Aristotelians and let them get on with their work.
We need more people like Rahner, Schillebeex, deChardin and others. And we need to let them work unhindered.
Matthew
2000 years ago the church was in its infancy and what we had was the product of story tellers and poets. We had no systematic theology, no sacramental theology (no recognized sacraments as such), no ecclesiology, no Christology, no canon of scripture. She contends that that situation was ideal. Good enough for then and good enough for now. Somehow I don’t think many here would agree with that.
I do think that the Church needs to lighten up on philosophers and theologians who are trying to develop systems to answer newer understandings of nature and reason. Our current arguments are based on natural philosophy which is out of date by some 1500 years. OP is correct that we need these men and women. But in order to benefit from their intelligence and wisdom the Church will need to open itself to free discussion and exploration. Aquinas is the product of 1200 years of struggle with Aristotelian philosophy. We need to allow a similar period of discussion and development today. The Office of the Inquisition (excuse me, the Office for the Doctrine of the Faith) will have to stop condemning non-Aristotelians and let them get on with their work.
We need more people like Rahner, Schillebeex, deChardin and others. And we need to let them work unhindered.
Matthew
R
Robin_L.in_TX
Guest
Have you read our Holy Father’s books, written both as Josph Cardinal Ratzinger, as well as Pope Benedict XVI? The late Great Pope John Paul II was of instrumental importance in my own faith journey. It was startling to have an old celibate man in Rome express feelings that I had as a contracepting woman that I could not!
Sometimes, I find that when I cannot see the Holy Spirit alive and well in our Chruch, it is when I am most in need of Reconciliation. I am not declaring you a sinner, only letting you know that I find the zeitgeist particularly powerful, and find face to face encounters with Jesus in the sacraments necessary to regain my “inner” eyes that let me “see” the Holy Spirit’s actions around me and even in me.
As to whether or not Augustine and Aquinas would update their writings and teachings: No, I don’t believe so. The Truth is unchanging. We may express it a little differently, but the Truth is the Truth.
Personally, I am always amazed when I read the Bible and find myself staring back at me: in the throngs of people in Wisdom who live for today, not recognizing our heavenly destinations; in the men of Sodom who came to Lot’s home seeking to have unnatural relations with the Angels of God; in the disciples who protested that eating and drinking Jesus’ Body and Blood was a hard saying and walked away; in Pilate who asks Christ, “What is truth?”
In my doubts and at various times, I have been each of them, but through the grace of God, I have always found my way back to the Way, the Truth, and the Life that is Christ, in the Sacraments, in the Mass, an the Church, and God-willing, in me.
I think the problem we seem to be having, is that the Truth is not something that is easy to discern; it takes a lifetime of patient learning (Bible and Church history study) and practice to discover that one has barely even begun the journey. The answer is not soundbites to make it relevant today, but rather to present it in its startling clarity, allowing Jesus to sound His clarion call: Repent & Follow Me.
There are teenagers I’d like to emulate when it comes to Faith, not to mention young women who have suffered multiple miscarriages with a beautiful abiding Faith I dream of one day having. But the problem is not making the Faith relevant to today’s people, it is calling them to make themselves relevant to the Truth.
There was much symbolism and relevance to the ritual and architecture of the pre-Vatican II Church. In studying them, I find my appreciation of the Mass as a means of praising, worshiping, offering, thanking, and communing with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit growing. In studying the Jewish faith, our roots, I find myself loving my Savior more, just as learning about our loved ones helps us to do the same in our grace-filled families.
I, too, have to remind myself, that being outside of time, God, and His more than 2,000-year-old Church usually do not react speedily enough to suit me, so I try to do what I can to improve the society in which I find myself, as well as my home parish. God has been schooling me though; I have seen more change, more reverence come to my parish by working on my own sanctity and turning to prayer than I ever did by trying to force changes in MY time.
With prayers for your peace of heart…
In Christ’s peace and joy,
Robin L. in TX
S
Shiphrae
Guest
Robin that is a wonderful post! I like your attitude and philosophy.
I believe that the Holy Spirit has never left the Church and never will. However many people in the Church have left the Holy Spirit. When the Canadian bishops decided to dissent against ‘Humanae Vitae’, they left the Holy Spirit.
Peace in Christ,
Shiphrae
I believe that the Holy Spirit has never left the Church and never will. However many people in the Church have left the Holy Spirit. When the Canadian bishops decided to dissent against ‘Humanae Vitae’, they left the Holy Spirit.
Peace in Christ,
Shiphrae
M
mschrank
Guest
I understand what you’re trying to say. You’re basically wanting to know how Catholicism is going to harmonize with and expand in the context of Modernity.
This is possible, but not in terms of a “progressive” movement in Catholicism. Secular-Progressivism is in itself a non-Christian religion and many of its implicit deep dogmas and precepts are closer to Eastern religion than the Judeo-Christian tradition, although at a superficial level it retains certain aspects of Judeo-Christian morality.
Look up the Buddhist parable of blind men groping at elephants and you’ll see it could of very well come from a modern college student. For more information on this, I reccomend you read “Truth and Tolerance” by the current Pope.
So what we are basically seeing is a clash between this new religion that offers easy virtue, and traditional Christian morality. You cannot serve two masters, and really, Sec-proism does not need Catholicism in any way. Trying to fuse these together usually results in a watered down Catholicism and a needlessly religious secular progressivism. Secular progressivism is inherently opposed to Truth in principle and only allows for religion if it is relativized, i.e., all religions are essentially the same, but different paths. Now, some religions like Buddhism would be quite happy with that- in fact, most paganisms are quite happy with that. Just look at the intermixing of religious pantheons in Vedic, Greek/Roman and Ancient Near Eastern religious contexts. However Christians believe in the God whose very name means being or the whole truth, “I AM”. So, this relativism is not a valid position to take.
So what we have is total war on the question of Truth between secular-progressivism, and Christianity. Therefore, it is impossible to reconcile the two.
Keeping that in mind, I am not saying the Church does not need to be improved in many ways. What we really need is a kind of alternative modernity. I agree with you, we can’t simply circle the wagons and kid ourselves into thinking the Church was just peachy until Vatican II. No, the Church had problems before Vatican II, big ones. For a couple, Catechesis (sp?) was terrible, and there was an emphasis on the religious (as opposed to laity, i.e., Priests, Nuns, Monks) that developed in a pre-modern context but became outdated. Basically, Catholicism developed an ‘only game in town’ kind of outlook based on a (often state enforced) religious monopoly, and suffered for it.
So I think this alternative modernity is going to be found in a new emphasis on the sacred. Modern people want beauty and a sense of the sacred because so much of modern life is ugly. The Church needs to offer people things which Modernity cannot provide or intentionally starves us of. The Church needs to stand out as a viable alternative to secular progressivism by correcting its errors (something that B16 is doing wonderfully) and offering people what they cannot get anywhere else.
I think “High Mass” is a perfect example of what attracts modern young people. For example, I attend a Church in downtown Chicago called St. John Cantius. Their masses are offered in Latin (TLM and NO) and incense, polyphonic choirs/sacred music, and there are far more people there on a Sunday than if you go to the koom-bay-yah Parish down the road.
So we will grow and adapt by being ourselves and offering an alternative modernity replete with the sacred and beautiful which secular progressivism and modern life denies to people.
This is possible, but not in terms of a “progressive” movement in Catholicism. Secular-Progressivism is in itself a non-Christian religion and many of its implicit deep dogmas and precepts are closer to Eastern religion than the Judeo-Christian tradition, although at a superficial level it retains certain aspects of Judeo-Christian morality.
Look up the Buddhist parable of blind men groping at elephants and you’ll see it could of very well come from a modern college student. For more information on this, I reccomend you read “Truth and Tolerance” by the current Pope.
So what we are basically seeing is a clash between this new religion that offers easy virtue, and traditional Christian morality. You cannot serve two masters, and really, Sec-proism does not need Catholicism in any way. Trying to fuse these together usually results in a watered down Catholicism and a needlessly religious secular progressivism. Secular progressivism is inherently opposed to Truth in principle and only allows for religion if it is relativized, i.e., all religions are essentially the same, but different paths. Now, some religions like Buddhism would be quite happy with that- in fact, most paganisms are quite happy with that. Just look at the intermixing of religious pantheons in Vedic, Greek/Roman and Ancient Near Eastern religious contexts. However Christians believe in the God whose very name means being or the whole truth, “I AM”. So, this relativism is not a valid position to take.
So what we have is total war on the question of Truth between secular-progressivism, and Christianity. Therefore, it is impossible to reconcile the two.
Keeping that in mind, I am not saying the Church does not need to be improved in many ways. What we really need is a kind of alternative modernity. I agree with you, we can’t simply circle the wagons and kid ourselves into thinking the Church was just peachy until Vatican II. No, the Church had problems before Vatican II, big ones. For a couple, Catechesis (sp?) was terrible, and there was an emphasis on the religious (as opposed to laity, i.e., Priests, Nuns, Monks) that developed in a pre-modern context but became outdated. Basically, Catholicism developed an ‘only game in town’ kind of outlook based on a (often state enforced) religious monopoly, and suffered for it.
So I think this alternative modernity is going to be found in a new emphasis on the sacred. Modern people want beauty and a sense of the sacred because so much of modern life is ugly. The Church needs to offer people things which Modernity cannot provide or intentionally starves us of. The Church needs to stand out as a viable alternative to secular progressivism by correcting its errors (something that B16 is doing wonderfully) and offering people what they cannot get anywhere else.
I think “High Mass” is a perfect example of what attracts modern young people. For example, I attend a Church in downtown Chicago called St. John Cantius. Their masses are offered in Latin (TLM and NO) and incense, polyphonic choirs/sacred music, and there are far more people there on a Sunday than if you go to the koom-bay-yah Parish down the road.
So we will grow and adapt by being ourselves and offering an alternative modernity replete with the sacred and beautiful which secular progressivism and modern life denies to people.
S
Shiphrae
Guest
You obviously have not read or listened to someone explaining some of the great writings by Pope John Paul 2 or Pope Benedict 16. I was just listening to a priest explaining ‘Humanae Vitae’ written by JP2. It’s amazingly brilliant!
Peace in Christ,
Shiphrae
S
Shiphrae
Guest
Sorry I made a mistake in my previous post. The writings that I was talking about is named ’ Evangelium Vitae’. It is ’ The Gospel of Life Versus the Culture of Death’.
Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae
Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae
P
pnewton
Guest
Spoken like a true liberal. I mean this in the kindest sense of the word. What today has become a dirty word, plays a vital role in the development of Church doctrine. We would have never progressed past the the first century understanding of theology were it not for those who thought and speculated beyond traditional theology. Unless we think we have arrived, we do not need to squelch the progressive thinkers
And before anyone jumps me, yes, I believe in slow, cautious progress checked by traditionalism. I just wanted to give the other side their proper kudos.
S
Shiphrae
Guest
Unless these progressive thinkers are trying to make their own laws. If they are ignoring the pope’s teachings and trying to redefine Catholicism to suit their own ideas, they should be squelched.
Peace in Christ,
Shiphrae
P
pnewton
Guest
Absolutely. Liberalism must be in concert with Catholic orthodoxy to by a postive force for change, then balanced by traditionalism.
P
palmas85
Guest
Humanae Vitae was not written by John Paul II. It was written by Paul VI. Sorry to burst your bubble. John Paul II had nothing to do with Humanae Vitae.You obviously have not read or listened to someone explaining some of the great writings by Pope John Paul 2 or Pope Benedict 16. I was just listening to a priest explaining ‘Humanae Vitae’ written by JP2. It’s amazingly brilliant!
Peace in Christ,
Shiphrae
- Status