"Subsequent clarifications from Vatican officials and other Catholic theologians have helped to calm fears that the document was trying to reverse the church's understanding of the place of separated Christians and non-Christians in God's universal plan of salvation as it was taught at the Second Vatican Council. "
Can there be a "God plan" of salvation when you are dealing with the gifts of free will and future? Hope maybe, but in my opinion a plan would be impossible. i.e. A "God-plan" would never fail.
"Leaders of non-Christian religions in particular asked if Catholic dialogue partners were now trying to 'convert' them rather than enter into sincere conversation."
How can a Catholic enter into *sincere* conversation with non-Catholics without extending to them the invitation for them to embrace the fullness of the truth? A Catholic who doesn't extend that invitation is either not sincere about his intentions in entering into the conversation, or else does not really believe that Catholicism is true, or else does not really understand what Catholicism is and why he would want to have a conversations with non-Catholics about it.
Jordan,
" 381±. Teach and Baptize: (1) Matt 28:16-20, (2) Did. 7:1; 382-. Gift for Gift: (1) Luke 6:38a, (2)1 Clem. 13:2d;"
"And Jesus came, and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:18-20
An added embellishment by well-meaning scribes? There are some who believe that is the case.
Something as important as this saying only appears in two of the Gospels and that gives rise to many questions about its historic value.
To say the least many have suffered because of these words of questionable historic veracity.
The Vatican investigation is calling on the Blossers for assistance? Is this a joke? Have they even looked at what appears on this website -- all that stuff about Juvenal, 'queers' etc.?
And what you say about interreligious dialogue seems to trample on the official teaching of a Council and five popes.
So you're saying that Benjamin Blosser is responsible for what his father says and does?
"To say the least many have suffered because of these words of questionable historic veracity."
But then there's not the slightest shred of evidence that those words are of questionable historic veracity.
I am troubled as well by Duggan's words. However I confess I am more disturbed by my own suspicion that he is entirely in line with the hierarchy here. Vatican II basically says if someone is sincere, they are Heaven-bound. John Paul II said as much, and made a cardinal of "Dare We hope All Will Be Saved?" von Balthasar. Writers as sound as Kreeft and Frank Sheed say pretty much the same thing: what lands you in Heaven is whether you are seeking God or no. And nowhere do you read the emphasis so frequently found in Reformed theology, that man does not naturally or typicallly seek God. The "good pagan" concept seems firmly entrenched in contemporary Catholic discussions (in keeping with the fact that the word "sin" is nowehere mentioned in the massive dociuments of Vatican II--where everything else is!). According to John MacArthur, Mother Teresa reportedly allowed pictures of Hindu spirits in her hospital, since she thought it best to let victims pray to their own God rather than alienate them with unsuccessful evangelistic efforts. Cardinal McCarrick now prays publicly to Allah. And thus Jesus' words about few saved and many damned are inevitably explained away as Jewish hyperbole. It seems like this infection from modern thinking is fatally implanted in Catholicism now. As for missions, are there in fact any substantial numbers of Roman Catholic missionaries out there who are actually more than relief works? There wouldn't seem to be much motivation. That is not a caustic question. Mission work doesn't have much of an imperative if the question "What must I do to be saved?" comes off like sloganeering from a fundamentalist sect, which is how Catholics now seem to take it. The whole issue is confusing for someone coming at the Roman Catholic Church from an Evangelical vantage point and a true obstacle to conversion. I wish an orthodox theolgian would address this in a more than passing manner.
Vatican II's documents never mention sin?? Have you never read, for example, Gaudium et Spes 13 and 14?
This is the way it always works: constant flirtation with heterodoxy while professing orthodoxy, each time assuring the impressionable that "it's ok -- you've just got to have the right understanding of it" -- gnosticism by another name.
Along these lines, I am glad to see that people are starting to take a more critical look at certain "teachings" of Scott Hahn, whose flirtation with the notion of the Holy Spirit as somehow the "feminine" side of God is one more manifestation of what seems to be a virtual lust with him to Say Something New at all costs -- a disease not exactly unknown among ambitious academics. Robert Sungenis, love him or hate him, makes an excellent point when he says that Hahn can find no support among the early Church fathers for his rather bizarre notion. So where does it come from? From a rather tortured reading of a handful of scriptural passages, apparently. Hahn, for no better reason than that he is popular, has gotten a free pass for too long.
I think Joe is making an excellent point, and I share his concern: what is the point of redemption, really, if there is no real justice, no real punishment, no real price to be paid for sin? And if nothing deserves punishment, what is sin anyway?
Again, what was Christ's point in establishing His Church, if any will do? For if any will do, none are necessary, and salvation -- if that word has any validity in such a scenario -- then depends on nothing more than being a nice guy.
Remove these particular bricks and its hard to see how the edifice remains standing.
Convergent noted:
"To say the least many have suffered because of these words of questionable historic veracity." i.e comments about Matthew 28: 16-20
Jordan rebutted:
"But then there's not the slightest shred of evidence that those words are of questionable historic veracity."
As a start let me "clean-up" my original post. 381±. Teach and Baptize: (1) Matt 28:16-20, (2) Did. 7:1
"And Jesus came, and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:18-20
An added embellishment by well-meaning scribes? There are some who believe that is the case.
Something as important as this saying only appears in ONE of the Gospels and that gives rise to many questions about its historic value.
Did. = Didache = Didache (dĭd'əkē
[Gr.,=teaching], early Christian work written in Greek, called also The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
It is not one of the four Gospels.
Therefore there is only ONE source of the Great Commission in the Gospels.
From another website:
"Matthew 28:16-20 could not be found in any of the early
> manuscripts of the NT. It appears only in the later completed versions.
Close inspection of Matthew 28:16-20 include
> themes that convey ideas that are post Matthew. "All authority has been
> given to me in heaven and on earth." ...a later stage of development in
> Christology. "You are to baptize them in the name of the Father and the
son
> and the holy spirit"...closer to the tradition of the Trinity than to the
> time of writing of Mathew's gospel.
Hugh Schonfield, in his "The Original New Testament," includes this passage
in Matthew by itself, saying in a footnote at the end of verse fifteen,
"This would appear to be the end of the Gospel. What follows, from the
nature of what is said, would then be a later addition." Other writers have
pointed out that verse fifteen seems to end the book and that the last
verses don't really fit."
And how much of our Church's sordid history is based on this ONE addition to the Gospel of Matthew?
Inquisitions, the Jewish Ghettos of Rome/Europe, and the Crusaders harsh treatment of Jews and other "non-believers" are some of history's reminders.
Convergent:
You are citing Hugh Schonfeld as a source. Hugh Schonfeld? Mr. Passover Plot himself?
What's next? The fungology of John Allegro, perhaps?
Schonfeld is to the study of Christianity what David Irving is to the study of the Second World War--an agenda-driven joke that gets a little funnier in each retelling. That you are reduced to citing him is confirmation of the flimsiness of your arguments.
Phil:
Excellent piece. You might want to have a look at my article on EENS at Pontifications and the resulting debates.
Best,
Mike
Ralph,
I'm going to have to disagree with you on the Dr. Hahn issue. You can believe it or not, but he has supported his thesis from some Church Fathers (mainly Eastern) as well as other saints like St. Kolbe (and theologians like Scheeben).Jake Michael and his friend has refuted Sungenis' attempt and I thought his response to their articles were terribly argued. Sungenis' main arguments were the issue of "identity" and "metaphor" which I thoguht was really stupid. On a side note, I have applied his standard to his thesis on God's anger and have shown that it is basically the same as that of Hahn. I have also refuted his whole notion of "God's contingent knowledge" which was a misinterpretation of Aquinas and it's ridiculuous that he can get away with that in Not By Bread Alone. If Sungenis' and Ferrara's piece on Dr. Hahn wasn't so polemical, I would have sympathized with them. However, that wasn't the case.
As for Joe's remarks, Dr. Mike and I have interacted with feeneyites in the link he provided. We have shown that Vatican 2 is consistent with Church Tradition especially in light of Patristic and Thomistic ecclesiology as well as the notion of implicit faith.
Dale,
I actually cited four references including that of Schonfeld. The single reference from Matthew noting that it is the ONLY reference to the Great Commission in the Bible. Something that important should have been included in all the Gospels but wasn't. This is very troublesome to me.
I also cited the single reference in the Didache, an extraconical reference. Again, something as important as the Great Commission should be in all extraconical references.
The next reference was from a website that reviews the historic sayings of Jesus.
This was followed by the Schonfeld reference.
Don't you find it odd that the Vatican has yet to address these obvious problems of single Gospel commands/stories of JC especially those of such great importance???
You had all of a one-sentence reference to the Didache.
Your citations to the still-unidentified website and the laughable Schonfeld were paragraph length. Your protestations notwithstanding, the weight of your argument was clear. Moreover, they are nonsense: none--NONE--of the manuscripts of Mt lack the verses in question. I suspect your website source has confused the matter with the various endings to the Gospel of St. Mark.
No, I'm not even slightly bothered by the fact the Great Commission appears as such in only Matthew. You have a decidedly power-oriented approach to revelation: only numbers count. By your criteria, I can flush Acts 20:35 because it only appears there. And in hearsay, no less. Multiple attestation has its uses, but outside of carefully-set limits, it gets gleefully abused. As here.
Moreover, your argument studiously ignores the evangelical imperative seen in Acts (e.g., 2:38-39; 4:12) and the Epistles (e.g., Gal. 3:26-29)--the Great Commission suffuses the New Testament, only choosing, as the Holy Spirit often does, to use different words. Which brings me to another point: your approach essentially denies the inspiration of scripture.
Frankly, there is nothing "odd" to be addressed, and the Church in Council has already spoken to those skeptical of the Gospels:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hi...-
verbum_en.html
See DV 17-20. What more needs to be said?
Appolonio,
What is far more impressive is the number of Church fathers who do NOT support Hahn's extravagant notion. If the case were to be decided by a preponderance of the evidence, I don't think Hahn would be taken very seriously by anyone on this point. I haven't read everything Hahn has written, nor do I intend to, but he strikes me as a rather ambitious fellow with a brilliant turn of mind and a certain lack of scholarly reserve. He would make a marvellous professor of English literature.
Sungenis IS very polemical, and very quirky. No disagreement there. But he is not the only one, as I'm sure you know, who finds Hahn questionable. I believe it was Dale Vree who first took issue with him in NOR.
Beyond that, no comment.
"your approach essentially denies the inspiration of scripture."
Well, Convergent has already made abundantly clear that he doesn't believe the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, so it would only be consistent for him also to deny the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture.
Dale,
From another private website restricted to discussion of the authenticity of the Bible:
"1. If one believes the passage, one believes Israel is damned to hell because the church of Jesus has superceded Judaism.
This, however, is what some people believe, whether they admit it or not. The Matthew 28 passage is the one that gives them the right to proselytize to everyone. It is the one that gives the Southern Baptists the right to try to "convert" Jews and Hindus. Sadly, it has also given them the "right" to kill
and abuse those who have disagreed."
2. Matthew 28: 16-20 is a post-death passage, and those sections of the four canonical gospels show less agreement than any other section, suggesting that many appearance legends had developed in different places and times. And,second, it is full of themes that Mt has developed in the book that are exclusive to Mt.
‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Note than in the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus countermands the Law,even the Big 10, with "but I say to you." And at the end of the Sermon they are amazed because he spoke as one having authority. The entire structure of the book casts Jesus as the New Moses giving a New Law.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations"
"All nations" in Gk is ta ethne, which actually means "the Gentiles." From beginning to end (literally--in this passage) Mt as per the addition is concerned with elevating
Gentiles while underlining repeatedly the unfaithfulness of the Jews.
Four noble Gentiles are worked into the genealogy of Jesus. In the birth story Herod is a new Pharoah whom Jesus has to escape by traveling *into* Egypt.
Meanwhile, Gentile astrologers cross the earth to worship Jesus. Mt has
several exclusive passages in which the Jews are condemned as worse than the worst of the Gentiles, e.g., Mt. 11 21-24: "‘Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you,
on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had beendone in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for
you,’" and 12:41-42: "'The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation ofJonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! The queen of the South
will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see,something greater than Solomon is here!'"
"baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,and teaching
Ralph,
To answer your remark on the Fathers...So? He does have some support which shows that he does have justification in holding it. As for the Vree article, Michael and Field addressed that as well. The fact is, we have people in the apologist business who thought that they left protestantism although protestantism has not left them (credit to Shawn McElhinney and Art Sippo). Some apologists have a solely docrinal approach on things because when they debate with Protestants, it's mostly on doctrine (Eucharist, Mary, etc). But the fact is, there is a difference between theology and doctrine which some apologists like Sungenis fail to understand (although he did retract his strong language after I put him to task for it).
As for Dr. Hahn lacking scholarly reserve, sorry, but after saying that you have not read everything or plan to, to say such a thing is irresponsible. Why don't you go to one of his classes or read Kinship by Covenant. True, most of his writings are intended for popular level. But to say that he is lacking scholarly reserve is to also say that Peter Kreeft lacks it too. He writes mostly for the popular audience too, but I'm not going to say he should teach english literature instead (although he is a very good writer). Scott Hahn is a very good scholar who has reintroduced covenant typology here in America. He should get credit for that.
Convergent:
I am not even slightly interested in interacting with Excerpts of What Some Private Anonymous Internet Guy Says.
Nor am I interested in an exercise of following the goalposts as you move them (from Hey, It's a Scribal Gloss! to Oh, That Matthean Community--Anti-Semites or Just Jew-Haters?)
If you have some point you'd like me to address, let me know. If you'd like to actually interact with the arguments I have made, definitely let me know.
Jordan:
That would be...dismaying, to put it mildly. Though I see a lot of limited inerrancy/limited inspiration advocacy, sad to say. It seems to be the popular fallback position, even if it's not particularly Catholic.
OK, one interaction: the argument that "nations" refers only to the Gentiles is hokum. Even the reliably minimalist commentary to the NAB rejects it:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/
m...ew28.htm#foot12
And the idea that Mt is some consistently anti-Jewish screed from beginning to end...would be hilarious if it weren't so tragically ignorant.
"1. If one believes the passage, one believes Israel is damned to hell because the church of Jesus has superceded Judaism."
Is this anonymous person you're quoting Jewish? If not, why does he care that Christianity claims to be the legimate successor of pre-70 A.D. Judaism? If he really has a problem with Matt. 28's teaching that Christianity is the one true religion, and that therefore Judaism is a false religion, then he should convert to Judaism -- and if he doesn't believe either Christianity or Judaism are true, then why is he concerned that Christianity claims unbelieving Jews have a need to accept Jesus as the Messiah?
In any event, it's a massive non sequitur to conclude that Matt. 28 teaches that each and every non-Christian Israelite has been damned to hell. It says the Church must preach the Gospel to all the world, and that those who believe the Gospel will be saved while those who do not believe will be damned. But what about those who have not heard the Church's preaching?
"Four noble Gentiles are worked into the genealogy of Jesus."
You're presumably referring to Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah. Trouble is, there's no evidence to believe Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite, was a Gentile. All we know is that he father was Eliam or Ammiel. Some have suggested that her father Eliam is the same as David's soldier Eliam, son of Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counselor who betrayed him and joined Absalom's rebellion. That would make sense, since it would make Uriah and Eliam fellow soldiers in David's elite troops. In that case, Bathsheba would be Jewish, not a Gentile. Indeed, there's no suggestion in Holy Scripture that Bathsheba was a Gentile. Presumably she was an Israelite, and her first husband Uriah was Gentle -- perhaps a proselyte to Judaism?
The four women named in St. Matthew's Messianic genealogy were not chosen for being Gentiles, but for comparison with the Blessed Virgin, who was accused of sexual misconduct. St. Matthew responded by reminding his fellow Jews that the Messianic lineage traces back to Tamar, who played the harlot with her father-in-law Judah in order to conceive children by him, and to Rahab the harlot of Jericho, and to Ruth the woman of the despised Moabite nation (said to be descended from Lot by incest with his own daughter) whose members were not allowed in the Law of Moses to become Jewish proselytes for several generations, and to the adulteress Bathsheba. What those four women have in common is NOT that they were all Gentiles, but that they were all guilty of sexual sin or were the fruit of sexual sin. It was as if St. Matthew said, "So you want to slander the Messiah's mother as a whore? Isn't the whole Messianic lineage of David permeated with women guilty of real, not just alleged, sexual misconduct"
So, I'm afraid your source has misapprehended the reason for the women named in St. Matthew's genealogy. But if you really want to find a Gentile in that genealogy, forget Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth -- you need look no further than the first name: Abraham.
"her first husband Uriah was Gentle"
Well, we hope he was gentle, but he was a soldier, so he could be quite rough too.
Oops.
(Alternatively, maybe Uriah was a hereditary land owner and had a lawful grant of arms . . . .)
Jordan,
And maybe the story of Abraham is another embellished yarn? Conservative Jews, over one million strong, no longer believe in the history of the OT. http://www.jewishsf.com/content/
...splaystory.html
http://www.simpletoremember.com/
...vativeTorah.htm
Again, how much of our Church's sordid history is based on this ONE addition to the Gospel of Matthew?
Inquisitions, the Jewish Ghettos of Rome/Europe, and the Crusaders harsh treatment of Jews and other "non-believers" are some of history's reminders.
And the Popes had their own Jewish ghetto right across the street from the Vatican. And baptism was their only way out!!! Very sad!!! I believe it was another conclusion of Augustine, don't kill them, just make life so miserable they will eventually see the light.
And there's still no proof that the Great Commission is a later addition to the Gospel of St. Matthew. In addition, you'll have a hard time convincing an Orthodox Jew that so-called Conservative Judaism is any form of Judaism at all.
Jordan,
Just to complete my commentary on the issue-
The Jesus "Seminarians" who have the education and publications to support their conclusions, education and publications by the way that commentators on this blog to include myself do not have, have voted overwhelmingly that Matthew 28:16-20 is not historic. i.e. a very negative/black rating, "Jesus did not say this. It represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition".
Again I find it very disturbing that our Vatican remains silent about the Jesus "Seminarians"!!!!!!
Final conclusion in my opinion- Matthew 28:16-20 should be called "The Great Commission of the Scribes/Translators of Matthew's Gospel".
And I agree tha an Orthodox Jew would not accept the conclusion of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews that Abraham did not exist. It is a fact though that many no longer believe in the historic accuracy of the OT.
I wonder if the OT scribes branched out into embellishing the NT and the extracannonical epistles and gospels with Paul being the best of the group?
So a few modern scholars who accept dubious modern philosophical presuppositions have come to the opinion that Jesus didn't really say what the Church has always said and will always say He said. I have the Church and 2,000 years of apostolic tradition voting on my side -- the democracy of the dead, as Chesterton put it. That's quite a lot of beads. If truth is determined by majority vote, as the Jesus Seminar folks seem to think, then obviously we must conclude that Jesus did really send His apostles out to all nations to preach and baptise.
Convergent,
You seriously need to stop paying attention to your favorite fools and start listening to Jesus Christ. If Holy Rit is nothing but an interesting and sometimes troubling collection of uninspired writings by various men and perhaps a few odd sayings from that troublemaker who claimed to be the Son of God, then why do you bother with it? And why bother with a bunch of deluded fanatics who really believe that the "Gospels" are "true"? Perhaps you protest too much. Forget your pride and phony "knowledge" and go before Him in the Blessed Sacrament and pray for the gift of faith. You will not be disappointed.
Apolonio,
Good gravy, I present a perfectly reasonable objection to Hahn's loopy notion of the Holy Spirit as the feminine member of the Trinity, and you grandly respond: "So?"
If this is an example of your approach to apologetics, perhaps you should try selling Fuller brushes door to door.
I am hardly a scholar of any kind, but I know enough about the work they do to understand that preponderance of evidence (to import a legalistic term) counts for a great deal. If, of the hundreds of Church fathers whose works survive, Hahn can come up with only two, both rather obscure, whose words appear to support his contention, and if he uses these two slender reeds as a rickety platform from which to launch his theological hot air balloon about the Holy Spirit as the "feminine dimension of God", one might reasonably conclude that the man is peddling bad medicine -- and he is peddling it not to his fellow scholars, but to a callow and unquestioning audience of pop-theology enthusiasts.
I'm not here to promote Robert Sungenis, as you apparently think I am. Anyone who looks as much like Elvis as he does has to be held under a certain amount of suspicion. But his article on the CAI website, "Do the Fathers Support Scott Hahn's Theory?", is a very cogent and reasonable one, and deserves more than an airy dismissal. Have Field and Michael "addressed" it? Wonderful! And this proves?
Read the "Raccolta" from cover to cover, and search for a single reference to the feminine Holy Spirit, the Spirit who came upon Mary and conceived the Son of God in her virginal womb. Get Field and Michael on it, and see what they come up with.
I'm sorry to disparage a man who is apparently a hero of yours, but I'll repeat my belief that Hahn would make a better English professor than a theologian. Consider for example, all the loony things that have been said about "Moby Dick", and parlayed by desperate junior professors into career-advancing journal articles: the while whale is God the Father (and Ahab is God the Son); a Christian archetype, no, a Hindu archetype, no, an Egyptian archetype, no, a Babylonian archetype; a symbol of the terrible destructive force of nature; a symbol of the wonderful creative force of nature; Id, Ego, and Superego; Curly, Larry, and Moe; your mother's old pajamas and your father's toupee; a symbol of heterosexual priapism; a symbol of homosexual priapism; a symbol of heterosexual and homosexual priapism in eternal deadly [or is it life-affirming???] embrace [Gracious, Fr Joe will like THAT one!]. And the Library of Congress Catalog only knows what else.
In my opinion, Hahn's willingness to push an unwieldy thesis up to and over the cliff, and then consent to push it into popular print, disqualifies him as a serious theologian or apologist.
Phil:
I like your piece because it keeps to the middle path, veering neither to one side nor the other. You eschew fierce rigorism as well as easy universalism. Since the latter error is much more common today, you naturally focus your critique on that, as we generally should.
The whole topic of EENS and evangelization is yet another one where most people seem incapable of holding all the relevant truths together. I have never fully understood why a properly Catholic “both-and” seems so difficult for so many people, including many Catholics.
Thanks for linking up my post at Pontifications on this topic.
Ralph,
You said, "I present a perfectly reasonable objection..." No offense, but that's a dumb objection. First, some Fathers mentioning it does not mean that it cannot be held. In fact, we only have a minority who taught the Assumption, so what? What about the Scotists' metaphysics? I can think of many theologies that has a minority position among the Fathers but so what?
As for Sungenis, he's a good apologist but a terrible theologian. His article has been refuted many times.
As for Dr. Hahn, it's funny how you didn't address the typology issue. The fact is, Dr. Hahn reintroduced covenant typology in America. He deserves credit for that. I don't really understand your Moby Dick stupidity. The Church Fathers interpreted the Scriptures typologically. Didn't you want support from the Fathers? Well, there it is. For more info on Patristic typology see Jean Danielou's "Bible and the Liturgy" as well as Henri de Lubac's "Spiritual Exegesis." So go ahead and make stupid remarks on typology, but you are going against the interpretation of the Fathers.
It's funny,you criticize Dr. Hahn for "lack of support" from the Fathers (although he also had support from other saints and theologians, and don't say Matthias Scheeben isn't a scholar either) and when I give an example of Dr. Hahn's contributions in scripture studies here in America,you ridicule it even though it is Patristic. May God's mercy limit your (our) stupidity.
Apolonio,
You are so ho hum blase about all this, as if the matter was long since settled. Yet the more I follow this controversy (I'm reading the CAI and Lumen Gentlemen material now), the more convinced I am that Sungenis/Ferrara have the better of it. I'll keep reading -- I can do so for long stretches now without moving my lips, so things are looking up.
The point of the "Moby Dick" stuff was that, in the field of literature, all sorts of loopy claims may be made with next to nothing offered in the way of proof. Whole books have been written based on the wispiest suppositions, and little or no effort is made to place suppositions within context.
But, as you are so fond of saying, "so what?" In the final analysis, the number of sentient beings who give a flying fig about the significance of the white whale is rather modest. Extravagance in literary criticism is of no real consequence, except to careerists in the field.
The same might be said about extravagant theological speculations. If Hahn's flights of fancy were limited to a small circle of scholars, they would be of no real consequence, and would probably have the intellectual stuffing knocked out of them by people who know how to do exactly that. But Hahn, like Ron Popeil, channels his stuff directly to the public. Thus, his speculations are properly identified as "novelties": Hahn basically says, anything goes, until the Magisterium says otherwise. And if the Magisterium does in fact say otherwise, well, years of errant teaching will not be undone, and Scott Hahn will simply say "sorry about that". Nice work if you can get it.
Thus we return to the "lack of scholarly reserve" I mentioned above.
The Vatican II quote in fact says exactly what Duggan says it does. It couldn't be much more straightforward:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the demands of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation."
I can't imagine of a more precise articulation of the concept that people can be saved simply by being sincere. "Outside the Church there is no salvation" could not be more flatly contradicted if one is approaching the issue from a point of basic English. The Vatican II fathers blundered into Sixties liberaliism recklessly. I hope it is pretty clear that when a Catholic can insist otherwise, talk of doctrinal development sounds about as convincing as Mormon defenses of Joseph Smith's Bible translation that say he never meant it was a translation when he called it a "translation." The Traditionalists' argument here is far more convincing to anyone coming at the scenario from a non-vested interest.
Joe -- at last someone on this weird forum agrees with what I pointed out in one of my very first postings here -- that Vatican II contradicts the earlier teaching of the Church. There are many other issues of which the same can be said -- the issue of slavery for example. The church lives and learns.
Yes, please keep this sort of thing out of Charlotte. We've already got an Episcopal church.
John, Dale, and Jordan: If there was any doubt that "Convergent" is spouting nonsense, his reference to the Jesus Seminar clinches it. The JS is a collection of secular "scholars," many of whom are not Christian, and all of whom allow their various philosophical commitments (one of which is naturalistic materialism) to override any other considerations. The idea that "our Vatican" (or any other Christian church) should take any of these people more seriously than the typical village atheist is laughable.
What about the Anglican who believes that the fullness of the Catholic Church and faith is found in the Anglican Church? I am fully aware of the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, and accept all of its beliefs,even to believe in the primacy of the See of Peter. Obviously I believe that the 1894(?) pronunciation on the validity of Anglican orders is wrong, otherwise there would be no objective and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist for me to hold to. But, being fully aware, and already believing virtually everything the RC Church also teaches, where do I stand? Mike L - especially interested in your reply. Anyone else also please weigh in. Thx.
"'Outside the Church there is no salvation' could not be more flatly contradicted if one is approaching the issue from a point of basic English."
Vatican II's teaching about the possibility that the sincere but invincibly ignorant might be able to be saved isn't any different from what Vatican I was preparing to say when the council had to be adjourned indefinitely. The obligation remains, however, for all men to seek the truth, to flee from their ignorance, to come to the true ark of salvation -- for the vincibly ignorant who remain outside the Church cannot be saved.
We can ignore Fr. O'Leary's assertion that Vatican II contradicted everything that came before it. If he's right, then Vatican II must be an invalid council -- and it's no latrocinium, so it must be accepted by all Catholics. (It's interesting that both the radical pseudotraditionalists and the modernists agree that Vatican II contradicts prior Catholic teaching.)
Ralph,
Aquinas didn't have many Fathers supporting him either in the sense that he took Aristotle's philosophy and Christianized it. In fact, many of the Augustinians of that day said he was pagan (see Spirit of Medieval Philosophy by Etienne Gilson). Again, the doctrine of the Assumption is a good example simply because if we take your standard (and some other stupid apologist), then we should reject it. The fact is, call it "novelty," but Dr. Hahn is allowed to make such a claim because he is a theologian. Theologians have the freedom to speculate on non-dogmatic things (meaning they cannot speculate dogmas as if they can be changed). Is every theologian supposed to simply re-state dogmas over and over again? Of course not. That limits the mystery of faith. Dr. Hahn's approach is perfectly fine. That should be the approach of every theologian. A theologian can make mistakes and if the Magisterium says otherwise, he must submit. That has always been the consistent way of doing theology. So there is nothing bad about that.
Finally, Matthias Scheeben, Eastern Fathers, and St. Kolbe seems to be good allies. As for Sungenis' arguments, LOL...yeah, someone needs to tell him what a metaphor means (it does have ontological significance). Plus, I know what happened behind the scenes and the interpretation of Jake was correct. Now, if someone is going to whine about Dr. Hahn not responding, go ask him yourself. I know the reason why. Jake does. And it is very admirable.
My defense of Dr. Hahn does not mean I completely agree with everything nor am I the biggest fan (his books are kinda expensive). The fact is, he should get credit where deserves and your criticism was terrible.
(my last post on this thread)
Apolonio,
Hahn's position as theologian may buy him a modicum of academic freedom. As I've said before, if a scholarly scrum were all that was involved here, few would care. But Hahn has parlayed his eccentric speculations into a media fiefdom, and has in the process molded the faith of ordinary people, probably a good many of them, with stuff that is definitely not doctrinal, and may turn out to be downright pernicious.
Did Aquinas run into opposition among scholars? May I quote your favorite apologetical response -- "So what?" That debate didn't spill over to Walden Books, Doubleday, pop lecture circuits, and EWTN.
Jordan,
Do you have any reference for the comment on Vatican I?
I am not sure why the whole 'good pagan' issue bothers me so much... on one hand shouldn't we all hope that everyone gets a pass in the end? It occurs to me that it may simply be how thoroughly pogrammed I am from my Reformed background, since it and the question of inerrancy are the two sticking points I am having in approaching Rome.
Anyway, if you have any sort of reference, it would help me be more believing of the Second Council not being not being an misdirected dance witht the moderns. Txs.
Joe, this is from the first draft of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, which Vatican I never got a chance to vote on and approve. (Incidentally, Vatican II used a lot of the unvoted-on drafts and schemas from Vatican I as starting-points for its own documents.)
"Chapter 7. Outside of the Church No One Can Be Saved: Furthermore, it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. Nevertheless, those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and his Church are not to be judged worthy of eternal punishment because of this ignorance. For they are innocent in the eyes of the Lord of any fault in this matter. God wishes all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth; and if one does what he can, God does not withhold the grace for him to obtain justification and eternal life. But no one obtains eternal life if he dies separated from the unity of faith or from communion with the Church through his own fault. If anyone is not in this ark while the flood rages, he will perish. Therefore, We reject and detest that irreverant and irrational doctrine of religious indifferentism by which the children of this world, failing to distinguish between truth and error, say that the gate of eternal life is open to anyone, no matter what his religion. Or else they say that, with regard to religious truth, only opinion in varying degrees of probability is possible and certainty cannot be had. Likewise, We condemn the ungodliness of those who shut the door to the kingdom of heaven to their fellow men with the false pretense that to desert the religion in which one was born, or educated and brought up, even if that religion is false, is unbecoming; or that it is not necessary for salvation. They blame the Church for professing itself to be the only true religion and for condemning and proscribing all religions and sects separated from communion with it, as if justice could ever have anything in common with iniquity, or light associate with darkness, or Christ meet with Belial."
(The Church Teaches -- Documents of the Church in English Translation, 1995, p.91)
What this draft formulated through negative propositions, Gaudium et Spes formulated in a positive sense -- but they are not in contradiction, if you read carefully, and remember that the Church says that Gaudium et Spes must be read in the context of the steadfast tradition of the Church, and not apart from or in contradiction to it.
Thanks!
VATICAN II SAYS THIS:
The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions [Hinduism, Buddhism]. SHe has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14.6). In him.. men find the fullness of their religious life. The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. Let Christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-Christians, also their social life and culture. Nostra Aetate
FLORENCE SAID THIS:
Firmiter credit, profitetur et pradeicat, nullos intra catholicam Ecclesiam non exsistentes, non solum paganos, sed nec Iudaeos aut haereticos atque schismaticos, aeternae vitae fieri posse participes; sed in ignem aeternum ituros... nisi ante finem vitae eidem fuering aggretrati... Neminemque,.. etsi pro Christi nomine sanguinem effuderit, posse salvari, nisi in catholicae Ecclesiae gremio et unitate permanserit. [The Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that none who do not exist within the Catholic Church, non only pagans but also Jews, heterics and schismatics, can become sharers of eternal life, but are to go to the eternal fire... unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church... No one... even if he shed his blood for Christ's name can be saved unless he remains in the lap and unity of hte Catholic Church.] Denzinger 714
After shaking trees & beating bushes, here are two helpful links that seemed less than forced:
http://www.domestic-church.com/C.../
definition.htm
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ315.HTM
Also C.S. Lewis' "Last BAttle" and the whole chapter on other religions in Kreeft's "Ecumenical Jihad." My take on this is obv. a work in progress!
"(The Church Teaches -- Documents of the Church in English Translation, 1995, p.91)"
Sorry, that should say 1955, not 1995.
Fr. Hardon's explanation of EENS is a pretty good one, showing how the Church's doctrine has developed without contradiction (as opposed to those like Fr. O'Leary, who say the Church used to teach a demonic heresy but now teaches the truth, which makes one wonder how we can be sure the Church was wrong then and right now, as opposed to wrong now and right then -- that is, why bother with the Church at all if she sometimes teaches what God wants and other times teaches what Satan wants).
Fr O'Leary:
The article of mine on EENS, a link to which our host has graciously provided, deals with precisely the issue your raise in your most recent "comment."
Best,
Mike
Michael, a capacious hermeneutics of development can indeed overrule all apparent contradictions in church teaching across the centuries. If the church were to declare homosexuality a normal variant of sexuality tomorrow no doubt a capable hermeneuticist could show that this is a case of development rather than contradiction. But the prodigious amounts of thought and study you have lavished on defending this position seem rather wasteful to me. The church evidently lives and learns. At the time of Florence it was generally assumed that the vast majority of humans were bound for Hell -- that was St. Augustine's view. Being a person of good will did not help if you were not lucky enough to have the grace of baptism, and indeed most of the baptized were not destined to persevere to the end either. Today the church finds such a pessimism about salvation abhorrent. Development? Contradiction? Numbers 31 has God commanding genocide and rape, which the author obvious considers something holy. Today we wince when we read such texts. Development? Contradiction? No, just history, living and learning, outgrowing childish thinkgs.
"If the church were to declare homosexuality a normal variant of sexuality tomorrow no doubt a capable hermeneuticist could show that this is a case of development rather than contradiction."
When there's nothing in the Church's experience to show in any way that homosexuality could be normal, it follows that it is impossible to make a case that it would be development rather than contradiction.
"At the time of Florence it was generally assumed that the vast majority of humans were bound for Hell -- that was St. Augustine's view."
And it may well be correct -- though I hope it's not.
Fr O'Leary:
Apparently your study of history has not revealed to you that the Fathers of Florence neither defined the narrow view of how membership in the Church can be attained nor condemned the broad view that theologians begain entertaining once again less than a century afterwards. Hence, the Church's healthy evolution from the former to the latter does not contradict the defined sense of EENS. It does not take a "capacious hermeneutic" to establish that; it just takes a lot of debate to get the Feeneyites and other half-educated folk to see it. And I don't think that Pius IX and Pius XII, who first gave papal approval to the broad view, can be accused of favoring a hermeneutic capacious enough to permit rejecting the Church's clear, unbroken teaching about the intrinsic immorality of fornication, sodomy, masturbation, and contraception.
Best,
Mike
Does discussion even of EENS have to be about sex?
Nothing in the church's experience to show that homosexuality could be normal, thinks Jordan Potter.
On the contrary, church history is full of living, breathing homosexuals who enriched it with sublime art and spirituality. Michelangelo is a case in point. If homosexuality is abnormal, then sell the Sistine Chapel.
You give the clue yourself to how the church will square the circle on the sexual matters you list. It will continue to say they are "intrinsically immoral" but in practice, with Paul VI, it will increasingly emphasize that they can be "diminished in guilt, inculpable, or subjectively defensible". Today, as everyone knows, the banishing of artificial contraception is little more than a pious ideal; and we have heard endless insistence that in any case it is a matter for the individual conscience. If that is your idea of a rocklike unchanging dogma....!
As to Florence, I am agreeing with you that you can iron out the contradiction if you want. But in reality the whole complexion of our thinking about salvation has changed to the point of unrecognizability. Augustinian pessimism about the number of the elect has pretty much vanished from our horizon. The notion of predestination that plays such a huge role in classical Christian thought, and that caused great mental terror to scrupulous souls who wrestled with it, is practically unknown today.
Fr O'Leary:
I happen to believe that today's easy, fashionable universalism about salvation, which goes beyond even the formal teaching of Vatican II, is just as wrong as the hoary Augustinian theory of massa damnata. I do not profess to know, even roughly, how many will be saved; the only safe course for those who know the Gospel is to follow Jesus' advice: "Enter through the narrow gate."
Which brings me to a similar point about the Church's sexual teaching, a topic we always seem to get back to. The Church has long acknowledged a distinction between objectively grave matter and subjective culpability. I believe that today's easy, fashionable presumption that the latter is typically lacking is just as wrong as the old presumption that it was typically present. I don't think we can know what, if anything, is typical. All we can do is follow Jesus' advice, and we have the teaching of the Church to lay out the parameters for us.
"Nothing in the church's experience to show that homosexuality could be normal, thinks Jordan Potter. On the contrary, church history is full of living, breathing homosexuals who enriched it with sublime art and spirituality. Michelangelo is a case in point. If homosexuality is abnormal, then sell the Sistine Chapel."
So Michelangelo was an author of Scripture, or a Church Father, or a magisterius, or a codifier of liturgy who injected the doctrine of the goodness of homosexuality in his liturgical prayers? (Assuming Michelangelo was a homosexual in the first place -- first I'd ever heard of it. I thought it was Leonardo who was supposed to be the homosexual, not Michelangelo.)
"You give the clue yourself to how the church will square the circle on the sexual matters you list. It will continue to say they are 'intrinsically immoral' but in practice, with Paul VI, it will increasingly emphasize that they can be 'diminished in guilt, inculpable, or subjectively defensible'. Today, as everyone knows, the banishing of artificial contraception is little more than a pious ideal; and we have heard endless insistence that in any case it is a matter for the individual conscience. If that is your idea of a rocklike unchanging dogma....!"
It's a pretty big leap from saying "Culpability for sin can be diminished" to "That's not a sin and never was." If the Church were to move from the first position to the second position, it would not be development, but corruption and defection.
Returning to the subject, however, it's true that the doctrine of predestination (whether Augustinian or Thomist or Molinist) has practically disappeared from Catholic consciousness. You can chalk that up to the dismal or practically nonexistent catechesis that set in after Vatican II. Catholic theologians still address it -- at least theologians of a certain stripe -- but the laity evidently aren't being taught about it.
Barth rewrote predestination as universalism in Church Dogmatics II/2 and Balthasar acclaimed that 600 page discussion as Barth's masterpiece.
Never heard about Michelangelo?
Half of Western art is fueled by homoeroticism.
Info on Michelangelo here:
http://www.glbtq.com/literature/
...chelangelo.html
wikipedia:
Fundamental to Michelangelo's art is his love of male beauty which attracted him both aesthetically and emotionally. Such feelings caused him great anguish, and he expressed the struggle between platonic ideals and carnal desire in his sculpture, drawing and his poetry, too, for among his other accomplishments Michelangelo was the great Italian lyric poet of the 16th century.
The sculptor loved a great many youths, many of whom posed for him and likewise slept with him. Some were of high birth, like the sixteen year old Cecchino dei Bracci, a boy of exquisite beauty whose death, only a year after their meeting in 1543, inspired the writing of forty eight funeral epigrams. Others were street wise and took advantage of the sculptor. Febbo di Poggio, in 1532, peddled his charms - in answer to Michelangelo's love poem he asks for money. Earlier, Gherardo Perini, in 1522, had stolen from him shamelessly.
His greatest love was Tommaso dei Cavalieri (1516–1574), who was 16 years old when Michelangelo met him in 1532, at the age of 57. In their first exchange of letters, January 1, 1533, Michelangelo declares: Your lordship, only worldly light in this age of ours, you can never be pleased with another man's work for there is no man who resembles you, nor one to equal you. . . It grieves me greatly that I cannot recapture my past, so as to longer be at your service. As it is, I can only offer you my future, which is short, for I am too old. . . That is all I have to say. Read my heart for "the quill cannot express good will." Cavalieri was open to the older man's affection: I swear to return your love. Never have I loved a man more than I love you, never have I wished for a friendship more than I wish for yours. Cavalieri remained devoted to Michelangelo till the very end, holding his hand as he drew his last breath.
Michelangelo dedicated to him over three hundred sonnets and madrigals, constituting the largest sequence of poems composed by him. Though modern apologists hasten to assert the relationship was merely a Platonic affection, the sonnets are the first large sequence of poems in any modern tongue addressed by one man to another, predating Shakespeare's sonnets to his young friend by a good fifty years.
I feel as lit by fire a cold countenance
That burns me from afar and keeps itself ice-chill;
A strength I feel two shapely arms to fill
Which without motion moves every balance.
lots more here: http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/mi....uk/
michela.htm
Not to put too fine a point on it, but who cares if Michaelangelo was gay?!!
If you insist on being homo-obsessed, at least answer a relevant question, like why all the gays with good taste apparently end up in the Episcopal Church these days, and the Catholics are stuck with such aesthetically challenged guys that the best they can give us is the N.A.B. and garrish cathedrals such as Mahoney's?
Good point, Joe, too bad it will fall on the deafest ears ever to hang over a clerical collar.
The point is not that homosexuals are a uniquely evil subspecies. The point is not that homosexuals, as individual children of God, are unworthy of love, sympathy and acceptance. The point is not that homosexuals are incapable of love of God, or of chastity, or of purity, or of zeal. The point is not to deny that some homosexuals have served the Church admirably, even wonderfully, over the centuries as artists, musicians, or in a wealth of other capacities. Sinners of all stripes have done so.
None of that is Jordan's point, or Joe's, or anyone else's, save for that legion of straw men Fr Joe persists in creating, nurturing, and sending into sham-battle with himself. Truly, where bug-eyed, slack-jawed homophobe bullies don't exist, Fr Joe enthusiastically invents them.
The point is simply that, whatever their often considerable virtues as individuals, in the eyes of the Church, homosexuals suffer a besettingly disordered psychological condition that makes their ability to serve as priests problematic, at best. Priesthood is not an entitlement. It is not a civil right. It is a calling for which certain physical, psychological, and spiritual attributes are required. Homosexuals lack certain of those attributes, and the attempt of some to wish this simple fact away has reaped the whirlwind.
Excellently put, Ralph.
"Half of Western art is fueled by homoeroticism."
Only half? Isn't it all homoerotic?
Michelangelo was invoked against Potter's claim that nothing in the church's experience indicates that homosexuality can be normal. I simply pointed out that the supreme chapel of the church was lavishly painted by a homosexual artists who filled it with nude youths. If homosexuality is abnormal why is it so prominent in the chapel where the papal conclaves are held?
Roister states the point in dispute correctly. I fail to see where I have pursued the other straw men he invokes. I contest the correctness of the pereption of homosexuality as a "besettingly disordered psychological condition", as do the vast majority of contemporary psychologists. I suggest that to cling to this description in face of the evidence is bigoted and homophobic.
For Roister it is a "simple fact" that gays cannot be good priests -- a simple fact belied by the vast history of the priesthood which is adorned by many gay priests of outstanding virtue and pastoral effectiveness. Again I suggest that persistence in such falsehood is indicative of prejudice, unjust discrimination, bigotry and homophobia.
"If homosexuality is abnormal why is it so prominent in the chapel where the papal conclaves are held?"
That's a pretty bizarre and overly broad definition and usage of the word "homosexuality." The word refers to the condition of men who are sexually attracted to men instead of women and women who are sexually attracted to women instead of men, or refers to the sexual activity or men with men (instead of or in addition to women) and women with women (instead of or in addition to men). But Fr. O'Leary would have us believe the word "homosexuality" refers not to any sort of sexual behavior or attraction, but to Catholic religiously-themed art produced by men and women who may possibly be homosexual.
Yes, the Sistine Chapel's paintings and frescoes are just so redolent of homoeroticism, aren't they.
Why does everything with you have to be about homosexuality?
Also, what does the possibility that the paintings in the Sistine were produced by a homosexual have to do with the contents and contours of the Deposit of Faith? Are you really arguing that Michelangelo's artwork is a product of the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, or is divinely inspired scripture, or is an apostolic tradition, or falls under the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi? As I said, there's absolutely nothing in the Church's experience that would enable her to stop teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful and instead start teaching that it isn't and was never sinful. There's nothing in the Deposit of Faith that could allow such a development -- which therefore wouldn't be a development, but would be a corruption and a falling away from divinely-revealed truth.
On the other hand, whatever some people may think today, the Church has never taught universalism -- the theory that everyone is saved.
Maybe not officially, but prominent members within the Church have: Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, Gregory of Nazianzus, etc.
Commenting by HaloScan
