Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 8 posts ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: The CDF did what?
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:25 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29103
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
resourcement wrote:
I am not trying to be belittling, but just honest. I hope you understand. Theology is an ocean, I have learned since my days in apologetics and time spent at "Catholic Answers" in California as an intern. As long as you are within the "Ocean" you are ok, but you better not step on the shore. Some people like to swim closer to the shore than others--they are encouraged, even by the Vatican, to do so as long as they are "servants of the Church". This is why the CDF even created the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the International Theological Commission, so as to encourage deeply speculative theology that is often new and which, honestly, many lay people might be confused about.


Umm the CDF did not create the PBC or for that matter the ITC

The PBC was founded by Pius X It's magisterial authoruty was revoked in 1968 and it was placed under the newly reorganised CDF

One is not a servant of the Church who teaches error, doubts any dogma, or writes in a captious manner. Teilhard, for instance, was no servant. Balthasar might clai error in good faith, but can Rahner?

And what is "new theology" anyways but a casting in doubt of the Church's constant theology? One can of course work to understand Truth better, but what these people do is attack it.

Going under investigation is never a good thing if there was a real cause for investigation. And condemnation is a sure sign of a bad thing (as in the case of Rahner, Teilhard)

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The CDF did what?
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:46 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:47 pm
Posts: 422
Location: Ohio, originally from Portland Oregon/SW Washington
Quote:
One is not a servant of the Church who teaches error, doubts any dogma, or writes in a captious manner. Teilhard, for instance, was no servant. Balthasar might clai error in good faith, but can Rahner?


Actually, the three that you mentioned are excellent examples of good, not so good, and really not good. I would never encourage someone who is not grounded in their faith and understands theology to read Rahner (not so good) or de Chardin (really not good). What I would encourage, as I have said, is that we offer restraint in our criticism. Humility, they say, is the acknoledgment of truth. If so, let's be truthful in our critique of ... anyone, theologian or not. If Chardin was not so good, why? Are there any redeeming qualities about his work? (test everything, hold on to what is good...). If I haven't read him, has anyone that I respect and know, so, if asked, I can offer that persons criticism since I really have no knowledge of the subject at hand, etc.

Quote:
And what is "new theology" anyways but a casting in doubt of the Church's constant theology? One can of course work to understand Truth better, but what these people do is attack it.


Ther term "new theology" was given by the neo-scholastic theologian Garrigou LaGrange after the release of de Lubac's "surnatural". It was meant as a degrading term. Ignatius Press sells a very short book, written by Balthasar, called "The Theology of Henri de Lubac". I encourage you to read it, as it discusses this matter in detail, but is a quick read. Not everything that theologians teach, as you know, are right. Neo-Scholastic theologians, for over a hundred years prior to the time of LaGrange, had misinterpreted Thomas Aquinas on Nature and Grace--at least that is the critique offered by de Lubac. He proposed a new synthesis, which was largely grounded in both Augustine and Thomas himself. In anycase, both views are within the realm of orthodoxy, and nobody was "attacking Truth".

Quote:
Going under investigation is never a good thing if there was a real cause for investigation. And condemnation is a sure sign of a bad thing (as in the case of Rahner, Teilhard)


Well, certainly nobody would hope for that. On the other side, it is good that Christ gave us a faithful Church, with pastors who are interested enough in our souls that they take seriously proposals of erroneous teaching, and, sometimes take action on it if they find it out to be true. Causes for investigation occur all the time, and are often unknown and produced, very often, by theologians who know people in the curia (particularily) the CDF, and make complaints. If it isn't outside thet "ocean" they won't say anything. If it is, then they do. If they are not sure, they will offer "caution".

_________________
J. Nickelsen

Visit my Website: http://nouvelletheologie.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:01 pm 
Offline
Hammer of Heretics
Hammer of Heretics
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:02 pm
Posts: 6466
Quote:
Neo-Scholastic theologians, for over a hundred years prior to the time of LaGrange, had misinterpreted Thomas Aquinas on Nature and Grace--at least that is the critique offered by de Lubac.


Oh boy, here we go...

_________________
Ora et Labora


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:48 am 
Offline
Huckleberry
Huckleberry
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:48 pm
Posts: 14677
Location: The Bright, Sunny South
Religion: Catholic
:popcorn

_________________
"Spread love everywhere you go."
- Bl. Mother Teresa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:35 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 9:24 am
Posts: 9279
Well, I remember reading Karl Rahner's Nature and Grace, and although this book may be considered his most traditional, there's not much good in it. There's one particular section that stands out in which he defines 'the heresy of indifference' as the failure to see that 'Faith, which is nonrational . . . is not meant to go on being monotonously repeated in stereotyped phrases in theology textbooks' and that 'the truth of revelation cannot exist on earth in one eternally static and valid form.'

This is the 'heresy of indifference'? I loathe Rahner for these ironic re-definitions of traditional terms, which make him seem as if he purposefully wants to harass orthodox readers. And the whole book keeps on doing this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:14 am 
Offline
Hammer of Heretics
Hammer of Heretics
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:02 pm
Posts: 6466
Quote:
I loathe Rahner for these ironic re-definitions of traditional terms, which make him seem as if he purposefully wants to harass orthodox readers. And the whole book keeps on doing this.


Yep, exactly. That is the tendancy of all of them. Arrogant redefinitions conjured up on their own minds, constantly trying to re-interpret and manipulate external religion and formulas.

Quote:
Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.


Quote:
And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.


Quote:
In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.


Rahner, et al, are guilty of these very things.

_________________
Ora et Labora


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:31 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29103
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
Quote:
Ther term "new theology" was given by the neo-scholastic theologian Garrigou LaGrange after the release of de Lubac's "surnatural". It was meant as a degrading term. Ignatius Press sells a very short book, written by Balthasar, called "The Theology of Henri de Lubac". I encourage you to read it, as it discusses this matter in detail, but is a quick read. Not everything that theologians teach, as you know, are right. Neo-Scholastic theologians, for over a hundred years prior to the time of LaGrange, had misinterpreted Thomas Aquinas on Nature and Grace--at least that is the critique offered by de Lubac. He proposed a new synthesis, which was largely grounded in both Augustine and Thomas himself. In anycase, both views are within the realm of orthodoxy, and nobody was "attacking Truth".


de Lubac's writings on grace and the supernatural were censred and he was forbidden on writing on that topic.

My term, not theirs, of "neo theology". I applied it myself, without aid of the lion of Thomism. St. Thomas de Aquin certainly was not need of reinterpretation by de Lubac. I find it sad and pathetic that many theologians, including orthodox ones (thinking of Billot) try to claim him as their own. He is not the magisterium, one might as well be upfront and say "hey I disagree with him". And it was not just the neo-scholastics and neo-Thomists that interpreted him they way they did, but the older scholastics and Thomists.

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:18 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 9:24 am
Posts: 9279
Matthew wrote:
Rahner, et al, are guilty of these very things.

My 'reading suggestion' for anyone interested in Rahner or any other progressive theologian is Leo XIII's Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 8 posts ]   


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


Jump to: