LouisvilleFan Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 This friend of mine is a Baptist seminarian and he's taking a class on Catholicism in which he is assigned to attend Mass at a local parish and basically evaluate that parish's "position" relative to the Catholic Church as a whole and in history (i.e. compared to the early Church, Middle Ages, pre-Vatican II, etc.). He came to Mass with me last Sunday and e-mailed some questions that he wants a Catholic perspective on. Some are easy, like "What is the current confession of faith for St. James?" Nicene Creed -- easy layup, two points. Most of his questions are specifically about my parish, but he has two here about Catholicism in general: 1) What would you consider to be the biggest change within the current Catholic church from historic Roman Catholicism? 2) Are there any Catholic books or authors you would recommend that would give a good representation of today's Catholic church in contrast to historical Catholicism? Regarding #1, Vatican II is an obviously relevant to that, but he also wants to go back to the first centuries and compare Catholicism today to Catholicism in St. Augustine's time or even St. Paul's. I feel pretty comfortable answering this one, but extra input always helps. But with #2 I'm not as sure where to go... I've thrown out some apologists like Peter Kreeft and Scott Hahn, but I'm not sure if they would be the best for helping a non-Catholic understand today's Church in contrast to the historical Church. Anybody got some better resources for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'm not sure I can help much. I consider the church today to be the same as the historical church. Scott Hahn's stuff is good from the perspective of a former Protestant's take on the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 [quote name='CatherineM' post='1814398' date='Mar 22 2009, 10:25 PM']I'm not sure I can help much. I consider the church today to be the same as the historical church.[/quote] This. Maybe this would be the best way to go. Isn't the typical baptist understanding that they are the catholics and that the people known as catholics (us) were the real schismatics? If you can demonstrate that we are the same we've always been... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 [quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1814386' date='Mar 23 2009, 12:16 AM']This friend of mine is a Baptist seminarian and he's taking a class on Catholicism in which he is assigned to attend Mass at a local parish and basically evaluate that parish's "position" relative to the Catholic Church as a whole and in history (i.e. compared to the early Church, Middle Ages, pre-Vatican II, etc.). He came to Mass with me last Sunday and e-mailed some questions that he wants a Catholic perspective on. Some are easy, like "What is the current confession of faith for St. James?" Nicene Creed -- easy layup, two points. Most of his questions are specifically about my parish, but he has two here about Catholicism in general: 1) What would you consider to be the biggest change within the current Catholic church from historic Roman Catholicism? 2) Are there any Catholic books or authors you would recommend that would give a good representation of today's Catholic church in contrast to historical Catholicism? Regarding #1, Vatican II is an obviously relevant to that, but he also wants to go back to the first centuries and compare Catholicism today to Catholicism in St. Augustine's time or even St. Paul's. I feel pretty comfortable answering this one, but extra input always helps. But with #2 I'm not as sure where to go... I've thrown out some apologists like Peter Kreeft and Scott Hahn, but I'm not sure if they would be the best for helping a non-Catholic understand today's Church in contrast to the historical Church. Anybody got some better resources for him?[/quote] We are current historical Catholicism, discipline changes - dogma and doctrine do not, but explanations do become clearer over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1814414' date='Mar 22 2009, 10:34 PM']This. Maybe this would be the best way to go. Isn't the typical baptist understanding that they are the catholics and that the people known as catholics (us) were the real schismatics? If you can demonstrate that we are the same we've always been... [/quote] That's what I was thinking that this guy was going for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I would recommend to him Karl Rahner's works. His systematic work Foundations of Christian Faith sums up a lot of develepment of the Church's doctrine in the 20th century and he influenced VII, yet that work is notoriously difficult. This following link is good for it sums up a lot of the developments of VII in a pastoral way: [url="http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2079"]http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2079[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 [quote name='kafka' post='1814425' date='Mar 23 2009, 12:44 AM']I would recommend to him Karl Rahner's works. His systematic work Foundations of Christian Faith sums up a lot of develepment of the Church's doctrine in the 20th century and he influenced VII, yet that work is notoriously difficult. This following link is good for it sums up a lot of the developments of VII in a pastoral way: [url="http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2079"]http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2079[/url][/quote] He would not be my theologian of choice, his anonymous christian stuff is not my cup of tea, I prefer a faithful catholic theologian. Why not Cardinal Ratzinger - he's published some stuff , and knows a thing or two about the Church. Or how about John Paul the great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1814447' date='Mar 22 2009, 11:59 PM']He would not be my theologian of choice, his anonymous christian stuff is not my cup of tea, I prefer a faithful catholic theologian. Why not Cardinal Ratzinger - he's published some stuff , and knows a thing or two about the Church. Or how about John Paul the great?[/quote] so you are saying he wasnt a faithful Catholic theologian. Wow. I dont even know how to answer that nonsense. His anonymous Christian ideas are basically the same as the Magisterium teaches and an some ways influenced some of the VII documents. Recall he was an expert at VII, and Pope Benedict was influenced by him. Have you even read any of his works? At the same time yes I agree the works of Cardinal Ratzinger would be a good recommendation to the Baptist, as well as JPII. Edited March 23, 2009 by kafka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 [quote name='kafka' post='1814471' date='Mar 23 2009, 01:18 AM']so you are saying he wasnt a faithful Catholic theologian. Wow. I dont even know how to answer that nonsense.[/quote] Really? Isn't this the guy who thinks some forms of birth control could be acceptable, and isn't this the guy who thinks ordination of women isn't really that bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1814498' date='Mar 23 2009, 12:34 AM']Really? Isn't this the guy who thinks some forms of birth control could be acceptable, and isn't this the guy who thinks ordination of women isn't really that bad?[/quote] Have you heard that in passing or have you read the actual articles where he went into those points. As far as I know he basically sent a letter to the Vatican saying that there teachings werent convincing enough yet that women cannot be ordained priests, that was before JPII taught it definitively. The birth control criticisms I havent examend and I dont really need to since he was responding to them forty years ago when NFP wasnt developed to the point it was today. In any case every single personal theologian is not free from error. I've even found errors in Cardinal Avery Dulles' works. I'm sure I could find errors in the personal works of any theologian. They arent infallible and to reject any theologian based on a few points in which he may have erred or went astray is shortsighted, naive, and I dare say pigheaded. The fact that a theologian errs on some points doesnt negate the fact that he may have made many good points and insights and was a great teacher to the Church as was the case of Karl Rahner and still is. I respect the works of no theologian based on any sort of reputation, appearance, supposed orthodoxy, etc. I judge their works based on truth and justice. All theologians, all scientists, all teachers must be read critically. There is no such thing as an absolute orthodox theologian. All men are prone to make mistakes. The Magisterium alone has the charism of infallibility under certain conditions, and this is only because it is the Holy Spirit asserting teachings on faith and morals drawing from an infallible Deposit of Faith, in cooperation with the men who possess the charisms of Magisterium namely the Bishops and Pope. Edited March 23, 2009 by kafka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 [quote name='kafka' post='1814534' date='Mar 23 2009, 01:56 AM']Have you heard that in passing or have you read the actual articles where he went into those points. As far as I know he basically sent a letter to the Vatican saying that there teachings werent convincing enough yet that women cannot be ordained priests, that was before JPII taught it definitively. The birth control criticisms I havent examend and I dont really need to since he was responding to them forty years ago when NFP wasnt developed to the point it was today. In any case every single personal theologian is not free from error. I've even found errors in Cardinal Avery Dulles' works. I'm sure I could find errors in the personal works of any theologian. They arent infallible and to reject any theologian based on a few points in which he may have erred or went astray is shortsighted, naive, and I dare say pigheaded. The fact that a theologian errs on some points doesnt negate the fact that he may have made many good points and insights and was a great teacher to the Church as was the case of Karl Rahner and still is. I respect the works of no theologian based on any sort of reputation, appearance, supposed orthodoxy, etc. I judge their works based on truth and justice. All theologians, all scientists, all teachers must be read critically. There is not such thing as an absolute orthodox theologian. All men are prone to make mistakes. The Magisterium alone has the charism of infallibility under certain conditions, and this is only because it is the Holy Spirit asserting teachings on faith and morals drawing from an infallible Deposit of Faith, in cooperation with the men who possess the charisms of Magisterium namely the Bishops and Pope.[/quote] He reminds me in some ways of Raymond Brown who wrote many things on scripture. His most popular works however, always phrased things in such a manor that it cause you to unknowingly question dogma - speculative theology. So many errors and heresies in scripture teaching go directly back to him. I always wonder/worry about these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1814550' date='Mar 23 2009, 01:08 AM']He reminds me in some ways of Raymond Brown who wrote many things on scripture. His most popular works however, always phrased things in such a manor that it cause you to unknowingly question dogma - speculative theology. So many errors and heresies in scripture teaching go directly back to him. I always wonder/worry about these people.[/quote] I've never read Raymond Brown, but I can truly say Rahner never questions dogma, not in the least. He is seriously, honestly, and reverently committed to the definitive Church teachings, and always had a view of building them up to an even greater degree and depth and sought to explain them in an original and new way, as well as seeking new insights into the Faith. That is the true calling of the theologian as Christ taught: {13:52} He said to them, “Therefore, every scribe (theologian) well-taught about the kingdom of heaven, is like a man, the father of a family, who offers from his storehouse (the Deposit of Faith)both the new (insights) and the old (insights).” Good theology seeks new insights into the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The teachings of the Faith advance, by development of doctrine, partly by the work of theologians in uncovering new insights, previously only implicit in the deposit of faith, and by presenting new ways to express the Faith (including past teachings and new insights). If heresy arises in the teachings of any theologian and begin to influence the Faithful toward heresy the Magisterium will take care of it in wisdom and due time. Otherwise the personal theologian is always accountable before God and will recieve a stricter judgment as expressed in James. Edited March 23, 2009 by kafka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Anyway back to the topic. Sounds like the seminarian thinks there is a dicotomy between the church that was and the church that is. Thats false - the church was, and is, and will be the same Church founded by Jesus Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missionseeker Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I would recommend him read the diary of the pilgrimage of Egeria. He will see that her mass (in the 4th century) was really quite similar to the one today. Probably the OF is closer to that one than the EF, to be honest. I find that very interesting. Newman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 He's heading down a road of missunderstanding if he is looking for "change" in the Catholic Church. From his baptist perspective he will likely see anything as change in doctrine. He probably needs to read Cardinal Neuman's piece on Development of Doctrine which is available here: [url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html"]http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now