Reccomended reading - Catholic beliefs
Luminaria
CATHOLICISM: Compete Revised and Updated New Study Edition - Richard P.
McBrien
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - Released in 1994.
WHAT IT MEANS TO BE CATHOLIC - by Joseph Champlin
BELIEVING IN JESUS - by Leonard Foley
WHY DO CATHOLICS? - Charlene Altemose
IN HIS LIGHT (Revised Ed.) - Rev. William A. Anderson
CHRIST AMONG US (Sixth Ed.) - Anthony Wilhelm
WHY DO CATHOLIC'S DO THAT? - Kevin Orlin Johnson
WE BELIEVE - Oscar Lukefahr
UNDERSTANDING CATHOLICISM - Monika Hellwig
BASICS OF THE FAITH: Catholic Catechism - Alan Shreck
MYSTERY OF CHRIST - Thomas Keating
NEW LOOK AT THE SACRAMENTS - William J. Bausch
stsva
criticized for reflecting what might be described as a skeptical view of the
teaching authority of the Magisterium and certain Church teachings.
Luminaria <lan...@javenetDOT.com> wrote in message
news:7rf2me$lo6$1...@winter.news.rcn.net...
Luminaria
stsva <st...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OcVOXNN$#GA.72@cpmsnbbsa05...
> Not to start any arguments, but I have seen McBrien's books severely
> criticized for reflecting what might be described as a skeptical view of
the
> teaching authority of the Magisterium and certain Church teachings.
>
I've heard that... what's up with that? I heard today that he was
"liberal"... but no real explanation.
Lis
Scott
Luminaria <lan...@javenetDOT.com> wrote in message
read. Although I'm just a layity (and have *questions* about some things
were are suppose to believe-those related to the discrepancies with the
sciences), I can tell what is on the fringe in theological discussions.
Review of Fr. McBrien's "Catholicism"
by the National Council of Catholic Bishops's
Committee on Doctrine
[released April 9, 1996]
In recent letters to Father Richard McBrien, Archbishop John R. Quinn,
chairman of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on
Doctrine and Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk, acting chairman upon Archbishop
Quinn's retirement, expressed disappointment that the new edition of Father
McBrien's book Catholicism did not sufficiently correct several deficiencies
that the committee had identified in its examination of the first two
editions of the book undertaken in the early '80s. This examination
culminated in a 1985 statement specifying a number of deficiencies that the
committee hoped would be corrected in any future editions.1
In addition to bringing this matter to the author's attention, the Committee
on Doctrine has also determined that a more general review of the book would
now be helpful to the Catholic community at large. This review was prepared
by the staff of the Committee on Doctrine and is published with the
authorization of the committee.
This review provides an outline of the major difficulties that the book
poses from the standpoint of those who are concerned to monitor the possible
effects of the book, not on theological specialists, but on theological
beginners, the vast majority of the people of God in every age. Insofar as
Catholicism is a work of speculative theology, professional theologians may
evaluate it; insofar as the book is an introductory textbook of Catholic
theology, it has certain shortcomings from the pastoral point of view that
will be examined in this review.
The problems which Catholicism poses as an introductory text fall into three
categories. First, some statements are inaccurate or at least misleading.
Second, there is in the book an overemphasis on the plurality of opinion
within the Catholic theological tradition that makes it difficult at times
for the reader to discern the normative core of that tradition. Third,
Catholicism overstates the significance of recent developments within the
Catholic tradition, implying that the past appears to be markedly inferior
to the present and obscuring the continuity of the tradition. Falling within
the latter two categories are difficulties that reappear throughout the
work; they constitute a pattern that could be overlooked by an exclusive
focus on particular passages.
A. Examples of Inaccurate or Misleading Statements
1) The Impeccability of Jesus Christ
Catholicism insists that it is possible to hold the faith of the church
while maintaining that Jesus Christ could have sinned. "It is not that Jesus
Christ was absolutely incapable of sin, but rather that he was able not to
sin and, in fact, did not sin"( p. 547). The book argues that "both
views-the one favoring impeccability and the one that does not-are within
the range of Catholic orthodoxy" (p. 547). This position, however, cannot be
reconciled with the Christology of the councils.2 In two natures, Jesus
Christ is only one hypostasis (or person), the hypostasis of the Word. With
Christ there is no possible subject of the verb to sin. There are indeed two
wills in Christ, but only one person, one subject. The contention that Jesus
could have sinned, if followed to its logical conclusion, inevitably implies
a Nestorian or an adoptionist Christology, though it must be said that
Catholicism does not draw such extreme conclusions.3
2) The Virginal Conception of Jesus
Catholicism presents the virgin birth of Jesus as being of uncertain and
perhaps even doubtful historicity.4 The book argues that belief in the
virgin birth should be considered a theologoumenon, "a nondoctrinal
theological interpretation that cannot be verified or refuted on the basis
of historical evidence, but that can be affirmed because of its close
connection with some defined doctrine about God" (p. 542). While the
adjective non-normative has been deleted from the new edition's definition
of theologoumenon (in the study edition, p. 516), the book continues to
describe belief in the virgin birth as "nondoctrinal." This belief, however,
has been a constant part of church teaching from the first century and has
been reaffirmed by the Holy See since Vatican II.5
It is confusing to say, as Catholicism does (p. 543), that the cooperation
of Joseph in the conception of Jesus was not excluded by any explicit
definition. That point has been implicitly taught in the creeds, and the
implication has been spelled out by constant and repeated magisterial
teaching since the fifth century.
The 1985 statement of the Committee on Doctrine pointed to (among other
matters) the treatment of the virginal conception of Jesus in Catholicism as
one of those that were found "confusing and ambiguous." This description
also applies to the treatment of this question in the new edition, for it
remains substantially the same. The book seems to suggest that as a result
of modern biblical scholarship the scales tip against the factual
historicity of the virginal conception. Interpreted in this way, Catholicism
comes very close to denying, if it does not actually deny, an article of
faith.
3) The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
While Catholicism offers an examination of the virgin birth and concludes
that this belief is a theologoumenon, its treatment of the belief in the
perpetual virginity of Mary is purely descriptive and never systematic. The
matter is discussed in terms of a descriptive history of the development of
this belief, an account that itself appears in the course of an overview of
the development of veneration of Mary in general (pp. 1078-1100). This
overview has a decidedly skeptical tone, emphasizing the lack of reference
and the occasionally negative references to Mary in the New Testament and in
the early church, the influence of apocryphal and particularly Docetic
writings, and the opposition of major saints and theologians (Bernard,
Bonaventure, Aquinas) to doctrines such as the immaculate conception.
The book stresses that the New Testament says nothing about the perpetual
virginity of Mary (rather, it speaks of brothers and sisters of Jesus) and
asserts that even in the second century there is no evidence for this belief
apart from the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James (pp. 1081-83). According
to Catholicism, the development of belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary
"coincided with a newly positive assessment of virginity" (p. 1083). While
the book does not explicitly conclude that the cause for the acceptance of
belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary was the church's desire to promote
virginity as an ascetical state, the reader seems to be invited to draw this
inference. It was because the church sought to foster the "glorification of
the Virgin Mary for ascetical reasons" that the church ignored the
opposition of those like Tertullian who recognized that such a doctrine
"introduced a new danger of Docetic trends" (p. 1083). The acceptance of
belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary is presented as closely if not
inextricably linked with the fostering of asceticism, which supposedly arose
only in the third century. After pointing out the absence of evidence for
this belief in the New Testament and second-century fathers, including the
opposition of Tertullian, the text continues:
"Mary's perpetual virginity, however, came to be almost universally accepted
from the third century on. By now consecrated virgins had been established
as a special state in the church, and Mary was presented to them as their
model" (p. 1083).
Although Catholicism does not arrive at any explicit conclusions as to the
status of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the description of
the history of the development of this belief gives the impression that
rather than a truth that the church only gradually uncovered, the belief in
the perpetual virginity of Mary was a creation of the third-century church
as part of its program to promote virginity and asceticism. The book
apparently favors the view that Mary had "normal sexual relations after the
birth of Jesus" and that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, while
admitting, however, that the New Testament evidence does not constitute an
"insuperable" barrier to the belief that Mary remained ever a virgin
(p.1081).
B. Overemphasis on Plurality Within the Catholic Theological Tradition
1) The Focus on Description
Catholicism is committed to presenting a wide plurality of theological
positions, both Catholic and non-Catholic. This emphasis on description,
however, leaves the necessary task of synthesis relatively neglected. The
book gives an overview of the theological scene in all of its variety and
presents numerous brief summaries of many positions. It confronts the reader
with a broad range of opinions and requires the reader to make judgments
among them. The problem, however, is that the reading of the text itself
does not prepare the reader to do this. The rapid succession of brief
summaries does little to help a beginner to understand, for often such
summaries are only useful if one already has knowledge of the subject. The
book does not do enough to enable the reader to grasp what is the main
current of the Catholic teaching and theological tradition.7
The central problem is the fact that the intended audience of the book is
those who are just beginning to study theology. The book requires the reader
to find his or her own way through what is sometimes a bewildering number
and variety of positions. There is a difference between respecting the
intelligence of the reader and making unrealistic demands upon one's
intended audience. While a trained theologian may have little trouble
negotiating through the various positions presented, a beginner does not
have a developed sense of what are really important departures from Catholic
tradition and what are not. The danger here is that the reader could simply
become confused about what the church believes. It is a weakness of this
book that, by devoting so much attention to the presentation of the
multiplicity of opinion, it provides insufficient direction for those
seeking to know what is truly at the core of the faith.
2) The Mainstream and the Fringes
Catholicism's emphasis on the plurality of theological positions on various
issues is that by including so many positions it leaves the reader with the
impression that all of these positions are part of the mainstream
theological conversation, when in fact a number of them are decidedly on the
fringes. The burden is on the reader to discern which positions are in the
mainstream and which are not.
For example, when the book places the Christology of Hans Kung between that
of Karl Rahner and Walter Kasper, it implies that all three are equally
representative of the Catholic theological tradition. Similarly, the opinion
of a radical feminist such as Rosemary Radford Ruether appears among the
Catholic positions on ecclesiology (p. 704) and worship (pp. 1073-74).
Matthew Fox is treated as one of the major figures of post-Vatican II
spirituality; the only hint that the text gives as to Fox's position on the
outer fringes of Catholic theology is the understated caution that "the
titles of his early trilogy of spiritual books tended to veer somewhat from
the conventional" (p. 1048). This descriptive approach, with its successive
summaries of various positions, does not provide the beginner with enough
information to assess the place of these positions within the Catholic
theological tradition as a whole.
One of the schools of thought presented is that of feminism. The label
feminism connotes a broad range of concerns and opinions. While feminist
theology has made an important contribution to Catholic thought, some of the
positions taken by feminist theologians are in fact quite far from
mainstream Catholic theology, if not actually inconsistent with orthodox
belief. The problem is that Catholicism embraces feminist theology as a
category in toto, without making any distinctions, and gives no hint as to
the extent to which some forms of feminist theology are in tension with the
Catholic theological tradition. The book portrays feminist theology as part
of the established consensus of contemporary theology and adopts its
language, speaking in terms of "patriarchy" and "androcentricism" (pp.
350-355, 533). In the Preface, the book presents the emergence of feminist
theology as the foremost example of positive change in the church since 1980
(p. xliv). One of the essential criteria offered for Catholic Christology is
a congruence with a feminist interpretation of Christ:
"Christological explanations which interpret the maleness of Christ in an
androcentric way or the headship of Christ in a patriarchal way effectively
deny the proclamation and praxis of Jesus regarding the universality of
God's love and the openness of the kingdom to all, women and men alike" (p.
533).
Catholicism offers no explanation of the meaning of the terms patriarchy and
androcentrism, however, and fails to give the reader a sense of the degree
to which aspects of feminist methodology are in tension with the tradition.
Particularly troubling are the discussions of the "fatherhood of God" and
'God language" (pp. 352-55) and the treatment of the maleness of Jesus in a
chapter on Christology (pp. 512-13). It seems to be implied that the
practice of speaking of God as Father or Son and of Christ as bridegroom is
"patriarchal" and "androcentric." The reader is not alerted, however, to the
difficulty of reconciling these radical theses with biblical usage and the
Catholic tradition. The biblical and traditional language, even in cases
where it is figurative, cannot be reduced to freely chosen metaphors for
which we may substitute others at will. Titles such as Father, Son and
bridegroom are indelibly inscribed in the Christian consciousness and have
authentically theological reasons behind them. The admittedly demanding but
nonetheless crucial questions of revelatory language and of the "analogy of
faith" at issue here do not receive adequate treatment.
3) Insufficient Weight Given to Magisterial Teaching
While Catholicism is concerned to include a wide range of voices in the
theological conversation, the teaching of the pope and bishops is often
reduced to just another voice alongside those of private theologians. By
presenting the range of views, the text is obviously intended to reflect the
fact that there is serious debate over certain questions in the contemporary
church. The problem is not that the book describes positions in opposition
to those of the magisterium, but rather that its presentation often lends
them more weight than the magisterium itself. The method in several
controversial questions is to present the official teaching and then to
follow it with a rebuttal by Catholics who disagree. The impression is thus
given that the "official" teaching is only one among a number of opinions,
in no way binding on the faithful.
For example, the presentations of the questions of contraception,
homosexuality and women's ordination all take for granted that these are
open questions; the official church teaching appears as merely one of the
options for the reader.8 Different positions are presented, and it is left
to the reader to make a choice, while the text implies that the "official
church position" is erroneous on all three points.9
In the treatment of contraception-one of those matters pointed to in the
Committee on Doctrine's 1985 statement as "confusing and ambiguous"--it
might have been appropriate to mention that five popes since 1930 have
consistently taught that contraception is intrinsically evil. For this and
other reasons, Catholics who reject this teaching would be invited to
reconsider their positions. The treatment of contraception in Catholicism,
however, does not encourage such Catholics to undertake a reconsideration of
their views on the matter, but rather confirms them in their lack of
acceptance of magisterial teaching.
Likewise, the question of women's ordination is another problematic aspect
of the book cited in the 1985 statement that has not been corrected. Again,
the issue is handled simply as a "disputed question" in theology. The
official teaching of the church is inserted in a section headed "arguments
against," thus giving the impression that whatever doctrine the church may
have on the question is not binding.
A further weakness is that the arguments on each side are presented so
succinctly that they are hardly intelligible unless one consults the
documents to which the book refers. In particular, Catholicism gives an
oversimplified summary of the 1976 report of the Pontifical Biblical
Commission. The book maintains that the commission "reported that it could
find no support for the exclusion of women from the ordained priesthood on
the basis of the biblical evidence alone" (p. 776, emphasis added). It does
not report the commission's statement that "the masculine character of the
hierarchical order which has structured the church since its beginning thus
seems attested to by Scripture in an undeniable way." While acknowledging
that the New Testament by itself alone does not settle in a clear way and
once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the
priesthood," the report did say: Some think that in the Scriptures there are
sufficient indications to exclude this possibility, considering that the
sacraments of eucharist and reconciliation have a special link with the
person of Christ and therefore with the male hierarchy, as borne out by the
New Testament."
Finally, there are passages in the book that speak of popes having "erred in
matters of faith" (p. 781; cf. p. 762) and having come down on the side of a
heretical position" (p. 479) without explaining the scope and significance
of such errors. In the absence of further explanation, such statements could
serve to cast doubt on the reliability of church teaching. Catholicism gives
insufficient clarification on such issues.
4) Doctrinal Minimalism
Also in keeping with the emphasis on the plurality of opinion within the
Catholic tradition, the overall direction of the text of Catholicism is
toward reducing to an absolute minimum the church teachings and beliefs that
are to be considered essential to the Catholic faith and to which one must
adhere in order to consider oneself Catholic. In part, this is the result of
the aforementioned inclusion of a range of widely divergent and sometimes
contradictory positions in the theological discussion, an inclusion that
implies that there is very little that these positions hold in common.
At the same time, a tendency toward minimalism also arises from what appears
to be the book's concern to accommodate those who may have difficulty
accepting some part of the Catholic faith as it has traditionally been
understood. At times, the text seems to make every effort to provide
Catholics a way out of accepting church teachings or beliefs that are
controversial or difficult to understand in terms of contemporary ways of
thinking. For example, the book seems to go out of its way to allow someone
to remove the doctrine of the virgin birth from any connection with history
by asserting that "whether the Holy Spirit's involvement positively excluded
the cooperation of Joseph is not explicitly defined" (p. 543). The implied
conclusion of the discussion of the belief in the virgin birth is that as
long as one affirmed that in some way Jesus shared an intimate communion
with God from birth, then the virginity of Mary is not essential (p. 542).
Similarly, the text often implies that the most intellectually respectable
position is the minimalist position, the one that makes the least demands
upon the believer in terms of reconciling belief with current attitudes of
thought, as in the argument for positing ignorance in Jesus, where the book
asserts that "there is no incontrovertible proof that [Jesus] claimed a
unique sonship not open to other persons" (p. 551).
It is against this backdrop that the brief section on the binding force" of
the Marian dogmas (pp. 1102-4) appears somewhat troubling and ill-advised,
even if the conclusions, drawn from the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue, are in
themselves quite nuanced. It seems to fit into a pattern of setting minimum
requirements for belief.
C. Overemphasis on Change and Development
Catholicism's clear affirmation of the superiority of modern theology and
modern anthropology -based upon the advances made by modern science and
philosophy-provides a crucial background for its presentations of various
positions. The problem is that this embrace of modernity is so enthusiastic
as to imply a certain naive denigration of premodern thought (and thus of
all forms of thought that do not embrace modernity). The text is at times
quite harsh in its criticism of patristic and medieval thought (pp.
163-65).' From the perspective of Catholicism, modern thought has
definitively superseded ancient and medieval thought.
Significant scientific, philosophical and theological advances in our
understanding of human existence did not occur until the 18th and especially
the 19th centuries, with the discoveries of Darwin and Freud, the new social
analysis of Marx and the new focus on the human person as subject in the
philosophy of Kant, in idealism and in modern psychology. The medieval view
of human existence could not, and did not, do justice to the special
character of the person" (p. 164).
In this view, only with the Enlightenment do we have the basis for an
adequate anthropology and thus for an adequate theology. "In the final
accounting, the Enlightenment marks the division between an often
precritical, authority-oriented theology and a critical, historically
sophisticated and philosophically mature theology" (p. 641)
Thus the contemporary theologian who has absorbed all the advances of modern
thought is in a superior position with regard to the tradition as a whole
(and also to ecclesiastical authorities who may be still operating from a
premodern or preconciliar point of view). For Catholicism, modern thought
becomes the prism through which the tradition must be viewed and judged.
This is the basis for the book's emphasis on change in the tradition. After
the Enlightenment, everything is now subject to revision because of the
attainment of this higher vantage point. "Because of the scientific,
philosophical and theological developments outlined in Chapter 4, the time
for an anthropological recasting of all the traditional doctrines is at
hand" (p. 166). The book often does not explicitly say that some traditional
teaching must be discarded, but it points the reader in this direction by
noting that history seems to be moving in a certain direction, thus implying
that the traditional doctrines are soon to be superseded. Examples would be
belief in the virgin birth and the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts."
Catholicism interprets Vatican II as the justification for this approach to
theology. In this view, Vatican II marked a great change in direction
because the church ceased to oppose and instead welcomed the modern world
and sought to incorporate the advances of modern thought (pp. 77-80; 92; 95;
166-67; 910-11; 1214). Preconciliar and premodern are here effectively
convertible. Left unmentioned are the ressourcement movement leading up to
the council and the council's own calls for renewal through a further
ressourcement by a return to the sources of the tradition. In Catholicism,
the council appears simply as an aggiornamento, a one-sided embrace of
modernity.
The overall effect of this exaltation of the modern over the traditional is
to provide a justification for those theological positions that call for a
much greater accommodation of church teaching to contemporary culture and at
the same time a distancing from traditional beliefs that are considered
outmoded or incompatible with modern thought. The book often implies that
the ..progressive" theologians are pointing to the future of the church and
that the pope and the bishops have not yet caught up. In this sense, the
theologians -and by implication the readers-have a superior vantage point
from which to look upon church teaching and tradition. Church teaching can
be effectively dismissed simply by being classified as reflecting
"preconciliar thought."12
Summary and Conclusion
Catholicism poses pastoral problems particularly as a textbook in
undergraduate college courses and in parish education programs. The
principal difficulties with the book lie not only in the particular
positions adopted, but perhaps even more in the cumulative effect of the
book as a whole. The method is to offer a broad range of opinions on every
topic with the apparent intention of allowing or stimulating the reader to
make a choice. This places a heavy burden on the reader, especially since
some of the opinions described do not stand within the central Catholic
tradition. The reader who is a theological beginner could easily assume that
all the authors cited are equally a part of the mainstream Catholic
conversation, whereas some of the authors are closer to the margins. While
the book could be a helpful resource to theologians looking for a survey of
opinions on some question, it might well be bewildering and unsettling for
Catholics taking undergraduate courses in theology. For some readers it will
give encouragement to dissent.
The problem is further aggravated because Catholicism gives very little
weight to the teaching of the magisterium, at least where there has been no
explicit dogmatic definition. At many points the book treats magisterial
statements on the same level as free theological opinions. On a number of
important issues, most notably in the field of moral theology, the reader
will see without difficulty that the book regards the "official church
position" as simply in error.
This review has focused exclusively on the problematic aspects of
Catholicism. Certainly, as the 1985 statement of the Committee on Doctrine
affirmed, there are many positive features to be found in the book.
Nevertheless, this review concludes that, particularly as a book for people
who are not specialists in theological reasoning and argumentation,
Catholicism poses serious difficulties and in several important respects
does not live up to its ambitious title.
ENDNOTES
1 Origins, vol. 15, no. 9 (Aug. 1, 1985): 130-32. The Preface to the new
edition of Catholicism is somewhat misleading when it characterizes the
Committee on Doctrine review as "careful and essentially sympathetic,"
thereby implying that the bishops had no serious concerns with the book. In
fact, in the way that the Preface refers to the committee investigation and
statement, they appear almost as a subtle endorsement of the book or as a
guarantee of its reliability as a guide to Catholic teaching in the sense
that the book has withstood the careful scrutiny of the Committee on
Doctrine of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
2 In the anathemas against the Three Chapters, the Second Council of
Constantinople (553) condemned the opinion attributed to Theodore of
Mopsuestia that Jesus attained impeccability only with the resurrection
(Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 434).
3 It is not that Catholicism is openly Nestorian or adoptionist. The book
does uphold the divinity of the Son and the doctrine of the Trinity in
general (p. 318). It explicitly affirms that the Word of God became human
for our salvation (p. 480) and that 'Jesus Christ was, in his very being and
from the beginning, the Word made flesh' (p. 556). Yet although the book at
some points talks about maintaining both the divinity and humanity of Jesus
Christ, at other points it seems unclear about the singleness of the
hypostasis or the identity of the person. For example, the book speaks of
the question of Jesus' sinlessness as being a question of "the intimate
communion of Jesus with God" (pp. 548-49). Jesus Christ "was so completely
in union with the Father that he was in fact absolutely without sin" (p.
547). Because of the hypostatic union Jesus was "aware of himself as a
subject in whom God was fully present and as one who was fully present in
God" (p. 556). Such statements certainly admit of an orthodox
interpretation, yet there is a somewhat confusing tendency to juxtapose
Jesus and God, as if they were somehow separate.
4 The book identifies two factors that have brought to an end the "virtual
unanimity of belief" in the virgin birth and led many to deny the virginal
conception of Jesus-"a newly critical way of reading the New Testament, and
a newly evolutionary way of perceiving human existence and human history"
(p. 543). Throughout the book, both of these are presented as unambiguous
advances of modern thought and modern theology. Indeed, the book points out
that the two factors that have led many to deny the virgin birth are "two of
the same factors which generated a change in our understanding of Jesus
Christ and of Christian faith itself" (p. 543). The implication is that
those who embrace the new theology (supposedly vindicated at Vatican II) are
those who deny or at least call into question the virgin birth.
5 The book itself refers to the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, the
Fourth Lateran Council and the Second Council of Lyons.
6 See Lumen Gentium, 52 and 57; Denz.-Schon. 291, 294, 427, 442, 503, 571,
1880.
7 In the chapter on Christology, the book itself reveals an awareness of the
problem of making one's way through the wide range of Christological
positions briefly summarized in the text: "How does one even begin to
evaluate such a wide array of theological positions?" (p. 530). The book
does speak of "an objective and objectifiable Christian and Catholic
tradition-(p. 530) and offers six "Christological criteria" to help the
reader discern this tradition. This attempt at synthesis, however, is
extremely brief (three pages) compared with the 35 pages of summaries of
various Christologies. (The fact that these three pages are followed by
another 30 treating "special questions in Christology" that either cast
doubt on church teaching or at least reflect unfavorably on it does not help
with this problem of discerning the core of the Catholic tradition.)
8 On birth control: "There are two sides to the birth control question in
Catholic moral theology" (p. 982). With regard to homosexuality, the book
summarizes the current state of theology by presenting three positions, the
"official magisterium" view standing at one of the extremes and the position
of Charles Curran and Richard McCormick representing a "mediating" position
(pp. 996-1000). At the end of the discussion of the ordination of women, the
book begins its conclusion with: "Whatever position one takes on the
ordination question ..." (p. 779).
9 The presentations of the conflicting positions often fail to be
evenhanded, for the expositions of the dissident opinions are usually more
fully developed than those of the "official" position, particularly since
the expositions of the dissident opinions include the counterarguments that
respond directly to the arguments used in support of the "official"
position, whose counterarguments are not presented (e.g., pp. 983-89; pp.
777-78).
10 The book also at points presents a superficial understanding of patristic
and medieval theology as when it asserts: "We are not composite beings, made
of body and soul as two separate parts (as the medieval Scholastic
philosophers had it)" (p. 159).
11 As pointed out above (Footnote 4), the book asserts that the factors that
have led many now to deny the virgin birth are clear advances on the part of
modern thought and modern theology (p. 543). Likewise, with regard to
homosexuality, it is because "new questions are arising in light of new
developments and scientific research in medicine, psychiatry and psychology"
that the traditional teaching must be re-examined (p. 996).
12 For example, with regard to the question of natural law and the new
approach proposed by some contemporary moral theologians, the book argues
that "the hierarchical magisterium ... has continued to employ the
philosophical approach of the preconciliar manuals of moral theology," as in
Veritatis Splendor (p. 962).
Scott
Luminaria <lan...@javenetDOT.com> wrote in message
news:7rfg8n$3j8$1...@winter.news.rcn.net...
>
> stsva <st...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:OcVOXNN$#GA.72@cpmsnbbsa05...
> > Not to start any arguments, but I have seen McBrien's books severely
> > criticized for reflecting what might be described as a skeptical view of
> the
> > teaching authority of the Magisterium and certain Church teachings.
> >
>
> I've heard that... what's up with that? I heard today that he was
> "liberal"... but no real explanation.
>
BTW, Why is there so much use of the terms "conservatism" and "liberalism"
with respect to religious discussions? For me, as a laity, it seems to bring
in too much secular-political overtones to the discussion. (Myself, I'm
politically conservative but theologically I would be considered liberal)
Isn't it really discussion between degrees of fundamentalism and critical
realism?
Scott
PS. I'm not really new to the group. I've been reading it for a good while
now. I'm trying to get a personal handle on where the Church is headed
theologically in the future.
Luminaria
Thanks for the heads up Scott, that was very helpful! I can see where
McBrien would indeed be a very confusing book especially for a beginner!
Thanks so much!
Lis
Scott
Luminaria <lan...@javenetDOT.com> wrote in message
Your welcome
Scott
athanasius
sacrament of Baptism he comments that our current understanding of
Baptism is much more like Eastern religions which have a "rite of
welcome" and that we have gotten rid of the original sin part.
Salome
athanasius <athan...@spam.com> wrote:
> Fr. McBrien also has a short book on the sacraments. Under the
> sacrament of Baptism he comments that our current understanding of
> Baptism is much more like Eastern religions which have a "rite of
> welcome" and that we have gotten rid of the original sin part.
He's a flake. Yes, I've heard of him. There are so many others who are
sound, why bother with this fellow if you have to think twice.
Salome
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Salome
> >
> > stsva <st...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:OcVOXNN$#GA.72@cpmsnbbsa05...
> > > Not to start any arguments, but I have seen McBrien's books
severely
> > > criticized for reflecting what might be described as a skeptical
view of
> > the
> > > teaching authority of the Magisterium and certain Church
teachings.
> > >
> >
> > I've heard that... what's up with that? I heard today that he was
> > "liberal"... but no real explanation.
> >
>
> BTW, Why is there so much use of the terms "conservatism" and
"liberalism"
> with respect to religious discussions? For me, as a laity, it seems
to bring
> in too much secular-political overtones to the discussion.
It has nothing to do with politics. It's the difference between
orthodox (sound) and un-orthodox (strays from the truth). Some people
refer to orthodoxy as traditional Catholocism, but really there is no
such thing. There is only the truth, or not the truth. What you hear
called "liberal" tends to NOT be the truth. But I'm not always
impressed with what you hear called "conservative" either. I don't
think those terms shuld be used as descriptors, IMO.
(Myself, I'm
> politically conservative but theologically I would be considered
liberal)
> Isn't it really discussion between degrees of fundamentalism and
critical
> realism?
There is a fundamentalism to Catholocism, yes. That's orthodoxy too.
But I don't know what yu mean by "critical realism".
> Scott
>
> PS. I'm not really new to the group. I've been reading it for a good
while
> now. I'm trying to get a personal handle on where the Church is headed
> theologically in the future.
IMO, the Church isn't "headed" anywhere in the future. The question is,
"where are WE headed" in terms of the Church's theology. She has done
her part, and we must do ours. Will we follow her or not? People are
always talking about "watching the Church to see where she is headed".
She isn't headed anywhere! It's the same theology for 2000 years. It
isn't going to change. The church isn't a transitory organization.
Bill Nourse
Luminaria wrote:
>
> CATHOLIC SOURCEBOOK - by Peter Klein
>
> CATHOLICISM: Compete Revised and Updated New Study Edition - Richard P.
> McBrien
>
> CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - Released in 1994.
>
> WHAT IT MEANS TO BE CATHOLIC - by Joseph Champlin
>
> BELIEVING IN JESUS - by Leonard Foley
>
> WHY DO CATHOLICS? - Charlene Altemose
>
> IN HIS LIGHT (Revised Ed.) - Rev. William A. Anderson
>
> CHRIST AMONG US (Sixth Ed.) - Anthony Wilhelm
>
> WHY DO CATHOLIC'S DO THAT? - Kevin Orlin Johnson
>
> WE BELIEVE - Oscar Lukefahr
>
> UNDERSTANDING CATHOLICISM - Monika Hellwig
>
> BASICS OF THE FAITH: Catholic Catechism - Alan Shreck
>
> MYSTERY OF CHRIST - Thomas Keating
>
> NEW LOOK AT THE SACRAMENTS - William J. Bausch
--
Charles W. ("Bill") Nourse, Ed.D., CPP
Memphis, Tennessee USA
http://personal.mem.bellsouth.net/~nourse
"I always knew that I would look back on my tears and laugh, but I never
thought I would look back on my laughter and cry."
-- Youssef Ali (AKA Cat Stevens)
Scott
Salome <jakob...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7rjne6$7i0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...<snipped>
>
> (Myself, I'm
> > politically conservative but theologically I would be considered
> liberal)
> > Isn't it really discussion between degrees of fundamentalism and
> critical
> > realism?
>
> There is a fundamentalism to Catholocism, yes. That's orthodoxy too.
> But I don't know what yu mean by "critical realism".
>
Well...its a terminology I believe I got from McBrien's Catholicism.
I guess it has to do with the "newer more critical way of reading the
Testiments" as he puts it. Ascending Christology (Christology from below)
which focuses on historical Jesus and move toward the the divine Jesus.
I'll quote from Catholicism:
Chapter XV Special Question In Chirsology
The knowledge, Or Consciousness, Of Jesus
The question of the knowledge, or consciousness, of Jesus is important for
two reasons: (1) Many problems of New Testament interpretation cannnot be
solved if there is no possibility of development, even error, in the
knowledge of Jesus and (2) Hebrews 4:15 and the Concel of Chalcedon assert
that Jesus is like us in all things "yet without sin." How much like us is
Jesus if he knew exactly what the future held for him, down to the finest
detail? We face the future with wonder and hope, and sometimes with fear and
dread. Jesus would have experienced none of these human emotions if he knew,
with factual certitude, precisely what the Father had in store for him, and
especially that the Father would raise him from the dead "on the third
day.".... Is he really one with us --in all things except sin?
There are three subquestion to be considered: (1) does the New Testament
attribute ignorance and even error to Jesus? (2) Does the official Church
admit of ignorance and error in the mind of Jesus? (3) Can the New Testament
record be reconciled with the official teaching of the Church?
Does the New Textament Attribute Ignorance and Even Error to Jesus?
Although there are indications in the New Testament that the early Church
thought Jesus to be in possession of unlimited and infallible knowledge, the
weight of the evidence seems to be on the other side.
Given the development from a low (Jesus-as-human) to a high
(Jesus-as-divine) Christology within the New Testament and within the
Gospels themselves (eg., from Mark to John), it is not surprising that the
later New Testament material shuld have suppressed any suggestion of Jesus'
ignorance. For example, Matthew 9:20-22 reports the same incident found in
Mark 5:25-33, where a woman "afflicted with a hemorrahage for a dozen years"
touched Jesus' garment and "healing power had gone out from him." In the
earlier Marcan account, however, Jesus does not know who touched him. In
Matthew's account, Jesus turns and immediately identifies the woman.
In John's report of the miracle of the loaves, Jesus asks Philip where they
could find enough bread to feed such a "large crowd" (John 6:5). But John
quickly adds that Jesus "said this to test him, for he himself knew what he
was going to do" (v. 6)....
All of the Gospels attribute to Jesus the ability to know what others are
thinking (Mark 2:6-8; Mark 9:33-34; Luke 9:46-47; John 2:24-25; 16:19,30).
But it is not always clear whether this reflects Jesus' own keen perception
of human nature or whether it is really a form of superhuman knowledge....
Indications Against Unlimited Knowledge
In Mark 5:30-33 ( = Luke 8:45-47), to which we referred above, Jesus does
not know who in the crowd touched his garment. In Luke 2:46 he asks
questions of the teachers of the Law in the Temple. In Luke 2:52 he is
described as having "increased in wisdom." both these texts are significant
because they are part of the Lucan Infancy Narrative, where Jesus is
presented unequivocally as God's Son from the moment of his conception.
Even in the specifically religious realm Jesus is shown to have been
ignorant about certain matters. He reflects the inadequate and sometime
erroneous biblical views of this contemporaries. He cites an Old Testament
text which apparently does not exist (John 7:38). He is wrong about the
identity of the high priest at the time David entered the house of God and
ate the holy bread which only priest were permitted to eat (Mark 2:26); it
was Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1-6) and not Abiathar, as Jesus thought. He was
in error, too, about the fact that Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, was killed in
the Temple (2 Chronicles 24:20-22); it was not Zechariah, son of Barachiah,
as Jesus said (Matthew 23:35). And Jesus mistakenly attributed Psalm 110 to
David, making it a messianic psalm besides (Mark 12:36), even though there
was no expectation of a Messiah at the time it was composed. Jesus also
shared the primitive ideas of the contemporaries about demons, confusing
demon possesssion with epileply and insanity (Mark 5:4, 9:17-18; Matthew
12:43-45; Luke 11:24-26). He drew upon the same limited religious concepts
of his day to describe the afterlife and the end of the world (Mark 9:43-49;
13). There is nothing new, superhuman, or unique about such declarations.
Jesus simply employed iedas and imager that were already current.
We cannot even take at face value his foreknowledge and predictions of this
passion, death, and resurrection (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; and parallels).
Among other exegetical problems, one has to account for the exceedingly
curious attitude of the desciples who, if they had really heard Jesus make
such predictions, should not have been taken by such complete surprise by
the crucifixion even when it was imminent; nor, of course, should they have
been so totally unprepared for the resurrection (Luke 24:19-26)....
....The biblical and theological discussions about Jesus' knowledge of the
date of the Second Coming (parousia) cannot usefully be summarized here. But
all those who favor a so-called maximalist position (namely, that Jesus knew
everything, and everything about everything) have to contend with the stark
assertion: "But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in
heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mark 13:32)....
Does the Official Church Admit of Ignorance and error in Jesus?
The gap betweenthe New Testament and the official teaching of the Church is
greater here than on the first two special questions, the virginal
conception and the sinlessness of Jesus. On the other hand, the magisterial
sources are less authoritative (nothing approaching an ecumenical concil,
for example), and their dependence upon the medieval synthesis is even more
pronounced.
Medieval Christology had argued , on the basis of the hypostatic union, that
no perfection is to be denied Jesus if it was as all possible for him to
have had it. Therefore, he not only klnow everything, but he knew everything
about everything. He ad *beatific* knowledge, i.e., God's knowledge of all
things; *infused* knowledge, i.e., angelic knowledge requiring no learning
effort; and experimental knowledge, i.e., what he inescapalbly encountered
within the particularitites of his earthly life. An extreme from of the
medieval position was expressed by certain seventeenth-century commentators
of Thomas Aquinas, known as the *Salmanticenses*. In their view , Jesus'
knowledge was so unlimited that he could accurately be described as the
greatest mathematician, the greatest doctor, the greatest painter, the
greatest farmer, the greatest sailor, the greatest philosopher, and so
forth....
In 1907 the Holy Office, under the direction of Pope Pius X, issued its
anti-Modernist decree *Lamentabili*, in which it rejected certain
contemporary assumptions about the knowledge and consciouness of Jesus,
namely, that he was in error about "the proximity of the Messianic advent"
and that his human knowledge was limited.
In 1918 the same Holy Office, this time under the direction of Pope Benedict
XV, categorized certain propositions as being "unsafe" for teaching in
Catholic seminaries and universities, namely, the opinion that Christ may
not have had the beatific vision during his lifetime, that he would not have
known "from the beginning... everything, past, present, and future, that is
to say everthing which God knows with the 'knowledge of vision.' "
Finally, in 1943 Pope Pius XII declared in an encyclical letter on the
Church as the Mystical Body of Christ (Mystici Corporis) that Jesus enjoyed
the beatific vision "from the time He was received into the womb of the
Mother of God." consequently, "the loving knowledge with which the divine
Redeemer has pursued us from the first moment of His incarnation is such as
completely to surpass all the searching of the human mind."....
Can We Reconcile the New Testament Record and the Teaching of the
Church?
No; at least not *these* teaching. But then, what precisely are these
teachings excluding, and what authority do they have?
The difficulty with answering the first of these two questions is compounded
by the variety of theological universes that are operative in the New
Testament, the medieval period, and in contemporary thought. On closer
examination, the three universes are not mutually opposed. The medieval
position is the "odd one out." The New Testament and present-dayt theology
are in closer harmony, one with another.
End quote. I'm tired.
The thrust of the arguement (as I understand it) is this: If Jesus had
(absolute) knowledge of the future, he would be denied a whole range of
human emotions. On dying on the cross, for example, if he knew he would rise
on the third day, he would be denied dread about the afterlife (undeniable,
the most important human emotion). Not to mention, how could Jesus have had
a sense of humor? Laughing at a joke or something funny means being caught
of guard by the punch line *or* introduced to a paradigm shift in
consciousness. And what about hope for the future? If you *know* the future
what need ye for hope about it? And that leads to wheather one has a need
for faith.
Scott
KyrieF
Catholic books "credentials" is wheter or not it has a Nihil Obstat and
Imprimatur on the copyright page. According to my copy of Cathloicism Today,
it says, "The nihil obstat and imprimatur are oficial declarations that a book
or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained
therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat and imprimatur agree with
the contents, opinions or atatements expressed."
As one in the process of converting, I initially struggled with knowing which
books were worth reading. I now use this, and the great folks on this
newsgroup as my starting point.