Need Suggestions

[Brother Adam]

Some of my classes are very flexible in our term papers, so I need your help in choosing a good, cutting edge topic for my papers:

1) Sacraments:

The student will be responsible for a paper on some teaching related to sacramental theology in general or an individual sacrament in particular.

What topic should I write on? I don't like being super general, so help me think of something please.

2) Theology of Pope Benedict

Pick one book for a critical review:

Eschatology; Principles of Catholic Theology; Theology of History in St. Bonaventure; Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith; Truth and Tolerance

Which book should I do?

[Birgitta Noel]

Mmmm, maybe something on Confirmation and it's proper understanding for the sacraments class? You know, how it's not graduation etc?

Haven't read any of those B16 books. Can't be any help there.

[cmotherofpirl]

Confirmation or Confession. The first is misunderstood, the second is ignored.

[Era Might]

1. Maybe you can explore marriage. The Holy Father encouraged reflection on the situation of divorced Catholics who remarry and later return to the faith. Is it possible that lack of faith could invalidate the first marriage?

2. Principles of Catholic Theology

[Laudate_Dominum]

Hmm.. For Sacraments I would probably pick something like this:

Catholic Sacramentalism Contrasted with Iamblichean Theurgic Ritual: With an Emphasis on Cosmogenic, Soteriological and Eschatological Considerations.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:43 AM']Hmm.. For Sacraments I would probably pick something like this:

Catholic Sacramentalism Contrasted with Iamblichean Theurgic Ritual: With an Emphasis on Cosmogenic, Soteriological and Eschatological Considerations.
[right][snapback]862696[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually this sounds interesting. I'm not familiar with lamblichean theurgic ritual, could you elaborate? Do you know enough about it to adjudicate?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Or maybe even better would be something like the seven sacraments of the new covenant in light of the old covenant dispensation. And show how they fulfill the old stuff.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:56 AM']Or maybe even better would be something like the seven sacraments of the new covenant in light of the old covenant dispensation. And show how they fulfill the old stuff.
[right][snapback]862703[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Maybe, but I think your previous topic could be more interesting. Or were you just making that ritual up?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jan 21 2006, 09:55 AM']Actually this sounds interesting. I'm not familiar with lamblichean theurgic ritual, could you elaborate? Do you know enough about it to adjudicate?
[right][snapback]862701[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, Iamblichus was a big dog of late neo-platonism and his influenced affected the subsequent development of paganism. Iamblichius' neo-platonism was highly ritualistic, and theurgy (or theurgic ritual) was that by which practitioners achieved a kind of participation in the divine; the end of which was 'henosis' in which the person is given a kind of demiurgic status. It's all rather complex and strange, but there are enough parallels on the surface that one could put together an interesting comparison of this pagan world-view and ritual practices of Christianity. Fundamentally they are radically different, but on a superficial level they seem quite similar. The late neo-platonists had their version of sacraments, their version of liturgy, etc. And yet they are as different as miracles and magic.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 21 2006, 11:07 AM']Well, Iamblichus was a big dog of late neo-platonism and his influenced affected the subsequent development of paganism. Iamblichius' neo-platonism was highly ritualistic, and theurgy (or theurgic ritual) was that by which practitioners achieved a kind of participation in the divine; the end of which was 'henosis' in which the person is given a kind of demiurgic status. It's all rather complex and strange, but there are enough parallels on the surface that one could put together an interesting comparison of this pagan world-view and ritual practices of Christianity. Fundamentally they are radically different, but on a superficial level they seem quite similar. The late neo-platonists had their version of sacraments, their version of liturgy, etc. And yet they are as different as miracles and magic.
[right][snapback]862709[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ah, I see what you mean now. Writing a paper that could really go no where other than showing similiarities on a superficial level may not be the best idea for such an assignment, though it is intruging none the less. Perhaps we see in these rituals something of a almost vacant shadow of the truth as the catechism explains it?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Oh, and the cosmogenic, soteriological and eschatological emphasis seems appropriate because these aspects of the world-view quite clearly reveal the fundamental contrast.
For Iamblichus the world is eternal and penetrated by the divine. There is no process of sanctification and transformation comparable to that of Christianity. Time is not seen in a linear way and thus there is no eschaton; the world is already eternal.
There is no repentence or anything of that sort; but merely the typical sort of Neo-Platonic "purification" which makes one more inline with the nous.
Anyway, you might find a better religion or sect to contrast with. It might be difficult to find decent sources on this stuff anyway.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:15 AM']Ah, I see what you mean now. Writing a paper that could really go no where other than showing similiarities on a superficial level may not be the best idea for such an assignment, though it is intruging none the less. Perhaps we see in these rituals something of a almost vacant shadow of the truth as the catechism explains it?
[right][snapback]862712[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I was thinking it would be a way of sort of dialectically getting at something of the heart of sacramentalism. It's good to have an opponent to butt heads with and Iamblichus would be just that. The questions to ask would be, what makes Catholic ritual and sacramentalism different from the ritual and theurgy of the pagans? Plenty of pagans had special objects that they believed had some sort of divine power or ritualistic significance, how is this different from Catholic sacramentals or the various objects and materials associated with sacramental ritual? (for example oil, water, bread, wine, medals, rosaries).

Obviously you would have to present the gist of the pagan worldview and the Christian. I started getting at a few of these in my last post. But as far as sacramentalism goes (as opposed to magic or theurgy), the event of the Incarnation and the Mystery of Christ as well as the Revelation of the Trinitarian God and the mission of the Holy Spirit are all central. It is really a pretty fecund topic. You might want to narrow it down just to make it managable.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Actually I think it would be phat to do a paper on the Eucharist.
A biblical and patristic examination of the corporate Christological mystery of the Eucharist.. Or something.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 21 2006, 12:01 PM']Actually I think it would be phat to do a paper on the Eucharist.
A biblical and patristic examination of the corporate Christological mystery of the Eucharist.. Or something.
[right][snapback]862736[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hrm... I would imagine it is way over done though. Gotta be original.

My head hurts. I've spent all morning decifering my first lecture in Dr. Hahn's class on the via moderna compared to the via antiqua of the 12 and 1300's and how it shaped Ockham's radical volunterism/nominalism later on, leading eventually to Luther's own views and the eventual Reformation.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jan 21 2006, 05:11 PM']Hrm... I would imagine it is way over done though. Gotta be original.

My head hurts. I've spent all morning decifering my first lecture in Dr. Hahn's class on the via moderna compared to the via antiqua of the 12 and 1300's and how it shaped Ockham's radical volunterism/nominalism later on, leading eventually to Luther's own views and the eventual Reformation.
[right][snapback]862740[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Ahhhhhhhh WHAT A LECTURE!! ME, ME, ME, ME!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jan 21 2006, 11:11 AM']Hrm... I would imagine it is way over done though. Gotta be original.
[right][snapback]862740[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Naturally. I have never seen anything that precisely elucidates the central point that I had in mind. Sometimes the most "common" subjects are those which are in most dire need of fresh air.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jan 21 2006, 11:11 AM']My head hurts. I've spent all morning decifering my first lecture in Dr. Hahn's class on the via moderna compared to the via antiqua of the 12 and 1300's and how it shaped Ockham's radical volunterism/nominalism later on, leading eventually to Luther's own views and the eventual Reformation.
[right][snapback]862740[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I heard Hahn give a similar talk once and it was kind of annoying. The standard take on that aspect of history has been shaped by Dominican propaganda is you ask me. (yeah you Myles

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 21 2006, 06:34 PM']I heard Hahn give a similar talk once and it was kind of annoying. The standard take on that aspect of history has been shaped by Dominican propaganda is you ask me. (yeah you Myles


[right][snapback]862782[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

ITS ALL TRUE! Luther's conception of an arbitrary damning God, the one he was so worried about in his pre-schism days that all arises out of the Via Moderna's conception of God.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 04:19 PM']ITS ALL TRUE! Luther's conception of an arbitrary damning God, the one he was so worried about in his pre-schism days that all arises out of the Via Moderna's conception of God.
[right][snapback]862823[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't know much about this topic, but from what I'm picking up here, I wonder if this has anything to do with the theoriest I've been formulating recently. I think that scrupulosity is related, at least in part, to the split between consciousness and external reality of Cartesian philosophy (that is, it's all in our head...we feel guilty...we perceive something that might be a sin, and worry endlessly and unreasonably that it is, in reality, something sinful or mortally sinful, and thus perceive ourselves to be damned). Since this seems somewhat related...what do you think?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 02:19 PM']ITS ALL TRUE! Luther's conception of an arbitrary damning God, the one he was so worried about in his pre-schism days that all arises out of the Via Moderna's conception of God.
[right][snapback]862823[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm well aware of that perspective, and I was once convinced of it myself. But the typical presentation ignores the role of the Dominicans and zooms in on Scotus and Ockham as the root of all evil.

The dynamics of history from the 13th century to the time of Luther are complex, and it would take several volumes to do it any justice, but I will at least raise some questions.

Well, provocative assertions as well as questions.

Everyone wants to whine about nominalism (which was nothing new at all), but there were a great many issues that contributed to the Weltanschauung of Luther's day. Averroism, exaggerated realism, terminist logic, the stinking Conciliarists, etc.

I would say Scotus is quite easy to vindicate, and the normal chain of succession that is presented in the more trite histories of philosophy is practically sheer fiction. Ockham too can be vindicated to some degree since modern scholarship (which is lacking in the generic 'theory' of the via moderne) has revealed that the followers of Ockham ought to be pegged for much that is so often pinned on Ockham himself. Some have even put forth powerful evidence suggested that Ockham himself was not even a nominalist!! And the political crrap that was going on makes one raise an eyebrow. I have also seen presentations of evidence suggesting the Dominicans, in their well-known spirit of rivalry, fabricated (or exaggerated) much of the anti-Ockham lore.

And IMHO, much of scholasticism as a whole can be shown to have tendencies which set the stage for the reformation, and Thomas himself can certainly be held under this microscope. In fact the dominicans are more to blame than the Franciscans (IMHO).

I can't put too much blame on Thomas since he wasn't considered the hot shot that he is now; Scotus was generally held to be the greatest scholastic. It was generations of Dominican lobbying and Dominican Popes that paved the way for the marginalization of the Franciscan tradition and the rise of neo-thomism.

So who paved the way for the via moderna and the revolution that set the stage for the revolt? Here are some of the figures worth looking into if you want a bigger picture:

Thomas Aquinas [his indirect effect on the subsequent milieu] (Dominican)
William Durandus (Dominican)
Henry of Harclay (Oxford)
William Crathorn (Oxford Dominican)
Walter Chatton (Oxford)
Peter of Spain (Dominican)
Walter Burley (Oxford)

And who were some of the heroes of this time?

John Duns Scotus (Franciscan, called Doctor Subtilis)
Peter Aureoli (Franciscan, called Doctor Facundus)
Nicolas Bonet (Franciscan, called Doctor Pacificus)

The works of Thomas were perhaps best known at the University of Paris, which was the breeding ground for some of the biggest figures of destruction:

Nicolas of Autrecourt (Paris)
Siger of Courtrai (Paris)
John Buridan (Paris)

All this hype over Ockham (failing to distinguish him from his unfaithful followers, which was an error of Luther that the Dominicans have shared), and yet little or no mention is made of the Concilliarists, the Great Western Schism, the scandals of the Popes, the scandals and corrupt systems of many of the men listed above, the heroics of the Franciscan doctors, and the many very obvious and direct heretical influences upon Luther and others; why don't we hear of Thomas Wilton, Bartholomew of Bruges, John of Gand, Gerard of Odo, Adam Wodeham, John Wessel Gansfort!!!!

I know why: We owe much of the generic account of history to the Dominicans.

We have the makings of a hot Jack Chick tract. Although there is certainly much truth to this presentation; or so I would say.

: