Why do so many Catholics cringe at theology, Vatican II and even the Catechism?

[Harmony1988]

I agree, sometimes I think some catholics want to purposely be ignorant.

However, what interests some people don’t interest others, and also the fact that theology and philosophy overlap and some people’s language skills are just not good enough to understand some abstract concepts.

 

[SanJudas]

I agree, sometimes I think some catholics want to purposely be ignorant.

A thousand pardons, but with whose post are you agreeing? Purposeful ignorance was not the point of my post at all, or any of the other posts above.

However, what interests some people don’t interest others, and also the fact that theology and philosophy overlap and some people’s language skills are just not good enough to understand some abstract concepts.

I presume that your own language skills are “good enough,” in your opinion? Unfortunately, it seems that those same language skills don’t extend to knowing that “Catholics,” being a proper noun, starts with a capital “C.”

 

[catharina]

God save all here.

JR,
I believe in another thread in which you were participating I accused theologians of sometimes “obfuscating” matters for the faithful. You have to understand that, in the same way that most people don’t know or want to know the details of how their television set works, many of us are content to practice our faith without having to plow through all of the tendentious arguments and hairsplitting definitions that often characterize theology and philosophy in general. Obviously, there are others who really do enjoy those things, just as there are those who are always tinkering with their cars or their computers or whatever.

I was raised in a Catholic family in a Catholic community. The stability that the practice of our faith gave us was our joy in times of peace and plenty and our strength in times of adversity. In the 1960’s we needed clarity and firmness, not confusion and ambiguity. Does that sound simplistic? Yes, but I defend that simplicity. Jesus Christ instituted, through our first Pope Peter, a hierarchy and magisterium, with the purpose of providing an authoritative body for the development of doctrine, ritual, and liturgy, to rule our communities, and to administer our Sacraments. These things were done as an aid to us so that we wouldn’t fall into confusion and error, and subsequent disbelief. For several centuries the Early Church battled heresies and schisms. By the beginning of the so-called “Middle Ages” ( I prefer the term “Age of Faith”) Church doctrine had stabilized somewhat and we see as a result the stabilization of Western society and the formation of Christendom. Christendom was ruptured at the end of that age by the reemergence of heresies and confusions (re: the Protestant Deformation) and the result has been the rebellious rejection of God and Church as guiding and ruling factors in our lives.

**
I fully accept the Vatican II Council as valid and authoritative. My beef is that the professional theologians who formulated its documents unintentionally caused much of this famous “obfuscation” which I believe has demonstrably been a source of the decline in vocations, the closing of parish churches and schools, and in numbers of faithful.** Considering the fact that the entire Western world has been caught up in a spirit of liberalism and relativism during this same period of time, an added dose of apparent flaccidness on the part of our ecclestiacal authorities was not helpful.

A house is best built upon a rock, not shifting sands.

Your “beef” is your “beef” yet it doesn’t relate in any way to a notion that the Church, even as it stands, is not built upon a rock. So many pundits, so many crtics …

as for me and mine, we serve the Lord.

 

[JReducation]

I understand that theology and philosophy can be very daunting for the average lay person. However, the laity must also accept and understand that theologians have a mission in the Church that dates back to the beginning of the Church.

Their mission is two-fold, 1) to defend the faith from errors tht may creep in through the back door and 2) to raise questions that challenge the Church to clarify and explain revelation.

If the laity is going to look at theologians for answers to their questions they are only going to become confused.

This is why the Church gave us the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism is the result of centuries of dialogue, research and even debate between philosophers, theologians, scripture scholars, liturgists, canon lawyers, and religious educators.

We must keep in mind that religious studies, like any discipline has areas of expertise. For example, when I got my MA I had to choose an area of theology. I chose Mystical Theology. While we had a core curriculum that is common to all theology students, the last two years of my program were dedicated to studying the workings of the Holy Spirit in the soul and the uninion between the Divine and the human soul.

After passsing my postgraduate examiantions, I again had to choose an area of expertise. I chose Philosophy of Theology. Philosophy of Theology calls into question the reason (logic) of theological pronouncements and belief. It’s purpose is not to deny the Church, but to seek clarification. It is meant to shed reason on faith.

Someone like Pope Benedict majored in Augustinian Theology, which is part of Systematic Theology. When it’s used by the laity it’s called Apologetics. When you get a degree in it, it’s called Systematic Theology. In any case, it’s function is to defend and clarify truths taught by the Church. It does not deal in the realtionship between the soul and God. It deals in the realtionship between God and truth. After passing his postgraduate examiantions, he decided to transitioin to Mystical Theology. That’s how he became an expert on Bonaventure and the Franciscan Mystics. His writings reflect both his background in Systematic Theology and Mystical Theology. They focus on truth and on the soul. They rarely focus on pastoral issues, because that’s not his area of expertiese.

If you listen to his talks this week in the USA, they are very lofty. Anyone who tries to apply them literally is going to run into serious trouble. You really have to understand Augustinian and Franciscan thinking about the Truth and about the soul.

I believe that while it is noble for the laity to want to study and understand theology, many on CAF are following the wrong track. If you really want to understand theology you must do several things. You must first understand philosophy, especially logic. Secondly, you must choose an area of theology that you feel God is calling you to study.

If you go all over the place, you’ll be lost and confused, because you will have snippets of this and that, but not the full picture.

For those who are unable or unwilling to undertake such a scholarly journey into theology, it its best to study the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to attend classes that may be given at the parish or diocesan level. Retreats often help a great deal.

People who are looking for a menu of Catholic life are not going to find it unless they look to the founders of religious orders and congreagtions. Their rules and their constitutions systematically spell out the spiritual journey and the steps that one must take.

Biographies of saints are also very helpful. By their lives they show how to live the Catholic faith.

There is only one warning that I would offer if you choose to read religious founders and biographies of saints. Remember, they were the product of their time. They were facing different issues. They are not going to have answers to every issue that we have today. One has to be good at extrapolation and generalization.

I would also refer people to commentaries. There are excellent commentaries on the Catechism, Canon Law, the Council Documents, and Scripture. They help clarify some of the language.

Finally, remember that the Church is a work in progress. While all public revelation is complete and truth subsists within the Catholic Church does not mean that we fully understand it all. Popes, bishops and theologians are still trying to make sense of much of revelation.

The Middle Ages seem very agreeable to many people, because the Church forbade the laity from becoming involved in Catholic theology. There were theologians involved in great debates even then: Bonaventure, Dominic, Anthony of Padua, Catherine of Siena, Duns Scotus, Aquinas. These are not in chronological order, but they give us a glimpse that not everything in the Church was clear. These theologians challenged Church teaching on many areas.

Many new religious communities were born as a result of the need to reform the Church, the two largest were the Franciscans and Dominicans.

The grass is not always greener on the other side. It’s just the way the light hits it.

JR

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

This is a real question.

I was trained in Catholic Theology for many years. I believe that I know my theology very well and that it is very orthodox, with a lower case “o”. I’m Roman Catholic not Eastern Orthodox.

Anyway, I fail to understand why some people have such difficulty when you mention words like: conscience or moral theology or when you quote the teachings of Vatican II.

I find there are two common reactions.

1. There are those who think that conscience, moral theology and Vatican II are a free for all. Which is wrong!
2. Then there are those who react as if conscience, moral theology and Vatican II were spawned by Satan himself. Which is also wrong!

Why can’t we just take them for what they are?

I converted to Catholicism through the study of theology. What brought me to the Catholic Church was its theology. It’s so logical. I often amazed at how many Catholics do not know real theology and how many do not want to kow it. Worse, how many abuse it either to the left or the right.

Why is this? This is crazy. It’s often worse than politics.

I think it is a difference between theory and real life. What is the overall meaning between the books and books of theological study? It is a matter of filtering the content out to something manageable. Nobody walks around with volumes of theological work to reference.

As such it is filtered down to the Two Greatest Commandments on the parish pew level and what actually leaves Church no matter what weekday or weekend it is. Love God and Love Your Neighbor As Yourself. While I save copies of past homilies, the overall message each week are the two commandments.

As others have said, this then leads to personal interpretations from all sides on how to apply it daily.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I understand that theology and philosophy can be very daunting for the average lay person. However, the laity must also accept and understand that theologians have a mission in the Church that dates back to the beginning of the Church.

Their mission is two-fold, 1) to defend the faith from errors tht may creep in through the back door and 2) to raise questions that challenge the Church to clarify and explain revelation.

If the laity is going to look at theologians for answers to their questions they are only going to become confused.

After passsing my postgraduate examiantions, I again had to choose an area of expertise. I chose Philosophy of Theology. Philosophy of Theology calls into question the reason (logic) of theological pronouncements and belief. It’s purpose is not to deny the Church, but to seek clarification. It is meant to shed reason on faith.

Someone like Pope Benedict majored in Augustinian Theology, which is part of Systematic Theology. When it’s used by the laity it’s called Apologetics. When you get a degree in it, it’s called Systematic Theology. In any case, it’s function is to defend and clarify truths taught by the Church. It does not deal in the realtionship between the soul and God. It deals in the realtionship between God and truth. After passing his postgraduate examiantions, he decided to transitioin to Mystical Theology. That’s how he became an expert on Bonaventure and the Franciscan Mystics. His writings reflect both his background in Systematic Theology and Mystical Theology. They focus on truth and on the soul. They rarely focus on pastoral issues, because that’s not his area of expertiese.

If you listen to his talks this week in the USA, they are very lofty. Anyone who tries to apply them literally is going to run into serious trouble. You really have to understand Augustinian and Franciscan thinking about the Truth and about the soul.

I believe that while it is noble for the laity to want to study and understand theology, many on CAF are following the wrong track. If you really want to understand theology you must do several things. You must first understand philosophy, especially logic. Secondly, you must choose an area of theology that you feel God is calling you to study.

If you go all over the place, you’ll be lost and confused, because you will have snippets of this and that, but not the full picture.

There is only one warning that I would offer if you choose to read religious founders and biographies of saints. Remember, they were the product of their time. They were facing different issues. They are not going to have answers to every issue that we have today. One has to be good at extrapolation and generalization.

I would also refer people to commentaries. There are excellent commentaries on the Catechism, Canon Law, the Council Documents, and Scripture. They help clarify some of the language.

Finally, remember that the Church is a work in progress. While all public revelation is complete and truth subsists within the Catholic Church does not mean that we fully understand it all. Popes, bishops and theologians are still trying to make sense of much of revelation.

The Middle Ages seem very agreeable to many people, because the Church forbade the laity from becoming involved in Catholic theology. There were theologians involved in great debates even then: Bonaventure, Dominic, Anthony of Padua, Catherine of Siena, Duns Scotus, Aquinas. These are not in chronological order, but they give us a glimpse that not everything in the Church was clear. These theologians challenged Church teaching on many areas.

Many new religious communities were born as a result of the need to reform the Church, the two largest were the Franciscans and Dominicans.

The grass is not always greener on the other side. It’s just the way the light hits it.

JR

Frankly I think you are most correct in your statements. I know from experience that most theology is simply not susceptible of easy reading and understanding. I’ve understood some, but that has been under the tutalage of theologians, systematic ones in my own case. I’ve been a good deal less successful in trying to maneuver through material on my own. I find Rayner for example nearly unintelligible.

I am as guilty as others of attempting to state Church teaching without having a proper background to do so. Many here insist that they can read encyclicals and other documents and then state with certainty what the church teaches and what she allows in terms of belief. I would hazard an opinion that they and I are wrong more than we are right. Yet some here do insist that virtually all priests in America are wrongly educated. Over and over, people bring issues before this forum and are told flatly that their priests are wrong, and to complain the the Bishop. I know also first hand how a good deal of that stuff is handled, a quick toss in the wastebasket.

I am constrained to know what is a solution. People want the Church to be what they want it to be and parse documents constantly to attain the interpretation they desire. I do not agree with what I perceive as many of Benedicts beliefs, but I wouldn’t try to argue with him, since I also recognize he is a brilliant mind.I have heard a good deal of commentary by some who have some expertise, who suggest that some will undoubtedly be parsing his speeches in the US to support their side of things. This will be done by both, and unfortunately the better part of the message will be lost.

 

[SanJudas]

Your “beef” is your “beef” yet it doesn’t relate in any way to a notion that the Church, even as it stands, is not built upon a rock. So many pundits, so many crtics …

as for me and mine, we serve the Lord.

So, Catharina, with your sarcastic and self-righteous remarks you so easily dismiss the concerns of many millions of the faithful, the clergy, and even our Holy Father Pope Benedict?

 

[JReducation]

Frankly I think you are most correct in your statements. I know from experience that most theology is simply not susceptible of easy reading and understanding. I’ve understood some, but that has been under the tutalage of theologians, systematic ones in my own case. I’ve been a good deal less successful in trying to maneuver through material on my own. I find Rayner for example nearly unintelligible.

I am as guilty as others of attempting to state Church teaching without having a proper background to do so. Many here insist that they can read encyclicals and other documents and then state with certainty what the church teaches and what she allows in terms of belief. I would hazard an opinion that they and I are wrong more than we are right. Yet some here do insist that virtually all priests in America are wrongly educated. Over and over, people bring issues before this forum and are told flatly that their priests are wrong, and to complain the the Bishop. I know also first hand how a good deal of that stuff is handled, a quick toss in the wastebasket.

I am constrained to know what is a solution. People want the Church to be what they want it to be and parse documents constantly to attain the interpretation they desire. I do not agree with what I perceive as many of Benedicts beliefs, but I wouldn’t try to argue with him, since I also recognize he is a brilliant mind.I have heard a good deal of commentary by some who have some expertise, who suggest that some will undoubtedly be parsing his speeches in the US to support their side of things. This will be done by both, and unfortunately the better part of the message will be lost.

I agree and support what you say. It’s a pity that so many people read a snippet of something and suddenly become experts. What they fail to realize is that often those of us who have studied theology have a difficult time understanding some things that are said in encyclicals and other Church documents. Many of these documents are the product of much philosophical and theological dialogue. Also, they are the product of a mystical mind.

For example, an encyclical such as Ut Unum Sint on ecumenism, is the product of John Paul’s mystical contemplation of the mystery of the Church. To understand its richness we have to understand how he saw the Church. Then we find that he was not abolishing what was taught by his predecessors, but that through some mystical experience he saw something that his predecessors had not seen and has added it to the teachings on this subject.

Not all encyclicals are written by the popes. Benedict has only written one. All others have been written by the Secretaries. The Secretaries are theologians in their own right. They have been commissioned by the Holy Father to write the encyclical, which the Pope proofreads and signs. While some papal encyclicals may resonate with the thinking of a particular pope, they may not be his words. He signs them, because they express what he wants to say.

This is another good reason to read the commentaries by legitimate Church authorities. For example, if you do not understand something from Canon Law, you should read the commentaries by the Canon Law Society of America. They have been given authority by the Holy See to be the official translators and interpreters of Canon Law. There is also an American Biblical Association with authority given to them from the Holy See to interpret scripture.

Just look at this debate on the liturgy. Many people still don’t understand the Motu Proprio. It was not a condemnation of the NO, whether or not the NO was created in the Vatican kitchens or by the bishops. What is good is good, regardless of where it comes from. The Motu Proprio is a declaration that reminds bishops, liturgists and the faithful that the Tridentine liturgy is still valid, even though it is the Extraordinary Form and that the NO is the Ordinary Form.

It also reminds us of one Truth. There is only one Roman rite in two forms.

The rest of this debate has been created by those who do not understand the document or who wish the document would say what they want to hear.

This is not the way theology works. Theology does not say what we want to hear. Theology sheds light on faith. St. Francis had a very good analogy that he often used. “Faith is the heart of the Church. Theology is the head.”

JR

 

[catharina]

So, Catharina, with your sarcastic and self-righteous remarks you so easily dismiss the concerns of many millions of the faithful, the clergy, and even our Holy Father Pope Benedict?

You said: “A house is best built upon a rock, not shifting sands.”

I said: “Your ‘beef’ is your ‘beef’ yet it doesn’t relate in any way to a notion that the Church, even as it stands, is not built upon a rock. So many pundits, so many crtics … as for me and mine, we serve the Lord.”

**
Meaning:

beyond any doubt, the Church is the Church, built upon a rock. That’s neither sarcastic nor self-righteous. It’s simply fact. If the fact offends you, then you have a problem.**

 

[catharina]

I understand that theology and philosophy can be very daunting for the average lay person. However, the laity must also accept and understand that theologians have a mission in the Church that dates back to the beginning of the Church.

Their mission is two-fold, 1) to defend the faith from errors tht may creep in through the back door and 2) to raise questions that challenge the Church to clarify and explain revelation.

If the laity is going to look at theologians for answers to their questions they are only going to become confused.

I believe that while it is noble for the laity to want to study and understand theology, many on CAF are following the wrong track.  **If you really want to understand theology you must do several things.  You must first understand philosophy, especially logic.**  Secondly, you must choose an area of theology that you feel God is calling you to study.  

If you go all over the place, you'll be lost and confused, because you will have snippets of this and that, but not the full picture.

For those who are unable or unwilling to undertake such a scholarly journey into theology, it its best to study the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to attend classes that may be given at the parish or diocesan level.  Retreats often help a great deal.

People who are looking for a menu of Catholic life are not going to find it unless they look to the founders of religious orders and congreagtions.  Their rules and their constitutions systematically spell out the spiritual journey and the steps that one must take.

Biographies of saints are also very helpful.  By their lives they show how to live the Catholic faith.

JR  :)

As I say so often, JR, thank you for another wonderful post. Although I’ve shortened it to a considerable extent (above), I do concur that a certain grasp of logic goes a long way in preparing one to study Theology. I recall that way back in my earliest days in a Jesuit university (in the 60s) one had to study and pass a course in Logic before one was allowed to study further in the field of Philosophy; and all of that preceded any further studies in Theology.

 

[Jeanette_L]

I agree and support what you say. It’s a pity that so many people read a snippet of something and suddenly become experts. What they fail to realize is that often those of us who have studied theology have a difficult time understanding some things that are said in encyclicals and other Church documents. Many of these documents are the product of much philosophical and theological dialogue. Also, they are the product of a mystical mind.

For example, an encyclical such as Ut Unum Sint on ecumenism, is the product of John Paul’s mystical contemplation of the mystery of the Church. To understand its richness we have to understand how he saw the Church. Then we find that he was not abolishing what was taught by his predecessors, but that through some mystical experience he saw something that his predecessors had not seen and has added it to the teachings on this subject.

JR

It seems that we see so many people completely not ‘getting’ John Paul’s message, this is because many don’t have any comprehension of the Mystic or how mysticism sees beyond just what is material, to what is in the realm of the spirit moving the whole living and breathing organism of Christ’s Body in time.

It is so very sad that more Catholics don’t bother to even try to understand the beauty of this, and in turn come to appreciate the beauty of what the Church’s great mystics throughout her life, such as our beloved John Paul, have given us in understanding our faith on the deepest levels.

There would be less confusion, anxiety and much less bickering if people would open themselves up to this wonderful area of our faith.

 

[JReducation]

**It seems that we see so many people completely not ‘getting’ John Paul’s message, this is because many don’t have any comprehension of the Mystic or how mysticism sees beyond just what is material, to what is in the realm of the spirit moving the whole living and breathing organism of Christ’s Body in time. **

As St. Edith Stein (St. Teresa Benedicta) said, “This is truth.”

JR

 

[SanJudas]

Let me try to put this another way:

The basic tenets and practices of our faith have been in place for over 1000 years. Even what may seem to be more recent additions such as the Rosary or the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception are modifications and/or clarifications of practices and beliefs that were already in existence. I have no trouble recognizing the contributions of say, Sts. Francis, Dominic, Ignatius of Loyola, or John Baptist de la Salle, but…someone please explain to me what good has Hans Kung done for the Church and its faithful? Or Fr. Karl Rahner or Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez? Can any of them hold a candle to Mother Theresa? Or to Mother Angelica for that matter?

You say there were dissenters before, but that their discussions didn’t reach the “general public.” Can you give a little credit to those who governed our Church for more than a 1000 years during the Age of Faith, that they tried to subdue dissent and confusion, rather than promote it? The society they built and ruled lasted a lot longer than this modern one which some of you seem to so ardently support. Don’t you think that maybe the people back then did a few things right every so often?

 

[JReducation]

Let me try to put this another way:

The basic tenets and practices of our faith have been in place for over 1000 years. Even what may seem to be more recent additions such as the Rosary or the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception are modifications and/or clarifications of practices and beliefs that were already in existence. I have no trouble recognizing the contributions of say, Sts. Francis, Dominic, Ignatius of Loyola, or John Baptist de la Salle, but…someone please explain to me what good has Hans Kung done for the Church and its faithful? Or Fr. Karl Rahner or Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez? Can any of them hold a candle to Mother Theresa? Or to Mother Angelica for that matter?

You say there were dissenters before, but that their discussions didn’t reach the “general public.” Can you give a little credit to those who governed our Church for more than a 1000 years during the Age of Faith, that they tried to subdue dissent and confusion, rather than promote it? The society they built and ruled lasted a lot longer than this modern one which some of you seem to so ardently support. Don’t you think that maybe the people back then did a few things right every so often?

Don’t go on the defensive. Let’s examine your questions. The Rosary and the Immaculate Conception are not additions to the Catholic faith. First, the Rosary is piety, not faith. There is no dogma regarding the rosary. The Immaculate Conception is a dogma that has always been hidden in Catholic faith and recently publicly recognized as part of the deposit of faith.

It would be theologically incorrect to compare the value of what individual Christians have contributed to the life of the Church. You mentioned Karl Rahner. Rahner was one of the chief theologians of Vatican II and he had gread influence in the theology of John Paul II and Benedict XVI in the area of ecumenism. Pope Benedict espouses his theology of church.

Kung also made a contribution. He challenged many of the Church’s teachings, especially in the area of moral theology. This helped the Church to find new ways of expressing her position on certain moral issues. Even though the Church did not adopt most of Kung’s teachings, he did force her to think. Anyone who forces us to think, does us a favor.

As to Mother Teresa and Mother Angelica, you can’t compare them either. Mother Teresa was a sister who made a significant contribution to the apostolic work of the Church. Mother Angelica is a nun who has made a great contribution to evagelization of the laity. First, they don’t even live the same form of religious life. Being a nun is a higher calling than being a sister. Evangelization and coporal works of mercy are equally important to the life of the Church. Both women have taught us, the laity, how to minister within the Church.

As to supporting this society over the previous society of the Church, I’m not sure of whom you speak. I support the Church from its foundation to today.

Let’s not get defensive or offensive. Let’s look at the topic of the thread, Vatican II, the Catechism, and theology and why some lay people have such negative reactions instead of really wanting to study them and learn from them. That’s what’s on the table.

JR

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I agree and support what you say. It’s a pity that so many people read a snippet of something and suddenly become experts. What they fail to realize is that often those of us who have studied theology have a difficult time understanding some things that are said in encyclicals and other Church documents. Many of these documents are the product of much philosophical and theological dialogue. Also, they are the product of a mystical mind.

For example, an encyclical such as Ut Unum Sint on ecumenism, is the product of John Paul’s mystical contemplation of the mystery of the Church. To understand its richness we have to understand how he saw the Church. Then we find that he was not abolishing what was taught by his predecessors, but that through some mystical experience he saw something that his predecessors had not seen and has added it to the teachings on this subject.

Not all encyclicals are written by the popes. Benedict has only written one. All others have been written by the Secretaries. The Secretaries are theologians in their own right. They have been commissioned by the Holy Father to write the encyclical, which the Pope proofreads and signs. While some papal encyclicals may resonate with the thinking of a particular pope, they may not be his words. He signs them, because they express what he wants to say.

This is another good reason to read the commentaries by legitimate Church authorities. For example, if you do not understand something from Canon Law, you should read the commentaries by the Canon Law Society of America. They have been given authority by the Holy See to be the official translators and interpreters of Canon Law. There is also an American Biblical Association with authority given to them from the Holy See to interpret scripture.

Just look at this debate on the liturgy. Many people still don’t understand the Motu Proprio. It was not a condemnation of the NO, whether or not the NO was created in the Vatican kitchens or by the bishops. What is good is good, regardless of where it comes from. The Motu Proprio is a declaration that reminds bishops, liturgists and the faithful that the Tridentine liturgy is still valid, even though it is the Extraordinary Form and that the NO is the Ordinary Form.

It also reminds us of one Truth. There is only one Roman rite in two forms.

The rest of this debate has been created by those who do not understand the document or who wish the document would say what they want to hear.

This is not the way theology works. Theology does not say what we want to hear. Theology sheds light on faith. St. Francis had a very good analogy that he often used. “Faith is the heart of the Church. Theology is the head.”

JR

Agreed. I was blessed with teachers who exposed us to many different ways of looking at theology. I got a strong overview in many different types, and they did well to expose the plusses and minuses of each approach. I have but a superficial understanding, but I am at least clear that theology is a branch of philosophy and there I learned indeed that it was neigh impossible to gain a real understanding of any philosopher simply by reading them. I recall that particularly from my greek philosophy prof. He summed up what the average person would get from Aristotle’s Nicomicean Ethics as “how to be a good person.” In that I think he was right.

Most people formulate an theory about what they feel comfortable with and then seek to find quotes from various writings to support that belief. The nuances are utterly lost. I have been amazed as my theologians took us sentence by sentence through a section of Rayner, explaining what he was saying. The words are simply too unfamiliar in our usage and a dictionary is but slight help.

I am confounded that some here feel they can tell others that their priests are uninformed, and teaching contrary to dogma. If so, then something has been very wrong in Rome for a very long time, since what they invariably insist is wrong, is what I was taught by either priest, nun, or theologian. And others agree with me, and the books I find in Catechesis say the same. So apparently several generations have been subjected to error and Rome is either unaware or totally unable to stop it. Yet, here heresy is declared on more subjects and people that I can count on two hands in one hour of reading. LOL. Last time I checked however, we still differentiate between laity and clergy. Here clergy have virtually no respect whatsoever, and they way I have seen nuns referred to is simply disgusting. Apparently habits carried magical powers of doctrinal soundness, all lost with the post Vatican II religious.

 

[beckycmarie]

Anyway, I fail to understand why some people have such difficulty when you mention words like: conscience or moral theology or when you quote the teachings of Vatican II.

I converted to Catholicism through the study of theology. What brought me to the Catholic Church was its theology. It’s so logical. I often amazed at how many Catholics do not know real theology and how many do not want to know it. Worse, how many abuse it either to the left or the right.

Why is this? This is crazy. It’s often worse than politics.

Here’s another phrase that freaks people out, JR:

“objective truth.”

 

[Jeanette_L]

Here’s another phrase that freaks people out, JR:

“objective truth.”

:bigyikes:

Isn’t that the truth!

 

[JReducation]

One word that I wish the laity who comes to these forums would drop is “abuse.” I think that it’s being taken out of context and over used. Do people make mistakes? Of course, even saints made mistakes. Look at Peter.

Somewhere someone read the word “abuse” in a papal document and decided to make it fashionable. Now everything that is an honest mistake and even things that are not mistakes, are translated as abuses.

The more I use the term abuse, the more I point to myself as the source of truth. I am putting myself above others and my understanding as superior to that of others. In a sense, the search for truth really becomes self-promotion and another form of narcisism. It’s like the man in the scriptures who said, “I thank you Lord for you have not made me like these other men.”

The theological meaning of the word “abuse” comes from the Latin “ab-uso”. “Uso” means use. “Ab” means from. Abuso means to use from. In other words, when we create something out of something else. It implies an incorrect extrapolation or an incorrect application. It does not carry with it the implication that there is deliberate harm intended. Abuse in theological documents means to take something out of context and use it incorrectly. It does not carry a moral judgement about the person who commits the act.

Another misunderstanding that we often run into on CAF is the use of the term heretic. In canon law a heretic is a Catholic who deffects from the faith. Those who founded the reformation ecclesial communities were heretics. But their descendants who share the world with us, 500 years later, have not deffected from the Church. Therefore they are not heretics.

Somethings that they believe are heresies, but that does not mean they are heretics. The believer is not necessarily the author of the belief. I am a Christian because I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and I believe what the Apostles taught about him. However, I’m not Christ, nor am I an Apostle in the literal sense. I am not the author of the faith. Am I responsible for what the Christian faith teaches? No, I’m not.

The theology of the Church is very clear. We must present the Church as a Mother who wants to reunite her children, not a judge, jury and prosecuter who wants to condemn them. When people do not understand the real identity of the Church, they tend to want the Church to be what they believe she should be. But the Lord and the Apostles already defined the Church as the bride of Christ and the mother of all, not just Christians.

The Church must embrace all people, as she is the bride of Christ who is the son of the Eternal Father who is father of all, Catholics and non Catholics. Hence the word katolikos in the creed. It does not refer to the Catholic Church. It refers to the universal people of God. All men and women belong to God and are children of the same Father and brothers and sisters of Jesus.

Those who are lost are lost because they have not used the graces that God has given them. How God dispenses his graces is a topic for very complex eschatological theology.

We just need to drop the excell use of words and terms that do more harm than good when they are used outside of their intended context. When in doubt, ask someone who knows theology and let them teach you.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

When in doubt, ask someone who knows theology and let them teach you.

JR

Seems to me this is a universal problem, both inside and outside the Church. We as humans don’t seem to recognize very often that we are always in need of learning more, and therefore are not often open to learning beyond what we believe we already know to be the totality of truth.

It’s why we often stop growing intellectually and spiritually.

 

[catharina]

Another misunderstanding that we often run into on CAF is the use of the term heretic. In canon law a heretic is a Catholic who deffects from the faith. Those who founded the reformation ecclesial communities were heretics. But their descendants who share the world with us, 500 years later, have not deffected from the Church. Therefore they are not heretics.

Somethings that they believe are heresies, but that does not mean they are heretics. The believer is not necessarily the author of the belief. I am a Christian because I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and I believe what the Apostles taught about him. However, I’m not Christ, nor am I an Apostle in the literal sense. I am not the author of the faith. Am I responsible for what the Christian faith teaches? No, I’m not.

JR

Thanks for the words of caution, JR. Especially thank you for repeating the facts quoted above. IMO, this can’t be repeated too often since so many Catholics seem to forget it.