Can anyone recommend a good introduction to the Venerable Cardinal? Although I have heard of Cardinal Newman many times, I have never known who he is.
It's about time for Newman! Ian Ker's biography of Newman-John Henry Newman would be a good start.
Yes, anything by Ian Ker would be reliable. There are other biographies that aren't bad, such as Meriol Trevor's Newman's Journey from the eighties. Newman's own autobiographical Apologia Pro Vita Sua plunges the reader into the controversies of his time, which may seem a bit disorienting without some outside help -- though the work is masterful. His Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine is probably his most celebrated classic.
Miracles? Most if not all the miracles performed by Jesus have been questioned for historical authenticity? Embellishments all?
And why is it required to have a human intermediary? Does this mean if someone chooses the wrong "venerable", one is out of luck? Litany of "venerables" needed?
Praying to God should be sufficient!!!
And why so very,very few and not all? Not very Christ-like IMHO.
Thousands of crutches displayed at Lourdes but only 65 "verified" miracles. Hmmmm!!!!
Then there are the secret files and meetings of the Congregation
for the Causes of Saints !!!! Maybe "Cardinal Law of Many Congregations" will join the Causes and open up the files!!
"Sainthood" politics and economics?
Buy your Pio beads at http://www.padrepio.com/
onlineor...piogiftshop.htm !!!!
Then there are God's laws of Nature. Change these laws for one in a billion souls? Hmmmm!!!
IMHO, a saintly life should be the only requirement for "sainthood". Time to eliminate the miracle requirement.
Is this a sick joke?!
No, St. Pio, Convergent is deadly serious.
Dr Blosser--
Flipping through the latest edition of The Thomist in the library, I noticed your review. Congrats! Sorry they didn't mention your blog in the author blurb at the end.
Before I try to educate Convergent on the Christian Faith, has somebody already tried?
I was educated K-12 by the Saints of St. Francis of Assisi. All are in Heaven now. None will be canonized but all should be. Great dedicated Sisters, Brothers and Priests!!!
They taught me to think "outside of the box".
Religious education continued recently by reading the books of Crossan, Borg, Funk, Johnstown, Brown, Armstrong, Chilton,Schillebeeckx and Somerville. This was done in an effort to rationalize my Faith and put some common sense into what I was previously taught. Concepts like limbo, purgatory, original sin, "miracles", blood sacrifices, predestination and immaculate conceptions just never made sense to me. Now they do. They are all embellishments of ancient and not so ancient scribes and theologians. Embellishments that made our religion adaptable and acceptable to the gentiles of the Roman world. IMHO, the embellishments need to be "asterisked".
But what is there to believe beyond the embellishments? the Incarnation? The Ressurrection? What are we to keep and not do away with?
No, do not waste your time, St Pio.
Meriol Trevor's two volume biography was published in 1962-3 -- the shorter "Newman's Journey" was first published in 1974. Trevor, a gifted writer, gives a warmer portrait of JHN than Ian Ker. The latter is too intent on presenting JHN as "manly". The old Victorian biography by Ward possibly gives a better sense of Newman in his times -- the social and ecclesiastical context -- than either. Henri Bremond and Sean O Faolain wrote interestingly on Newman. For theological studies, the situation is unsatisfactory. Devotion and biography prevail. There is Walgrave, Newman on Development; Sheridan, Newman on Justification; Kerr and Nicholls, ed., "John Henry Newman: Reason, Rhetoric and Romanticism". Is there any really satisfactory comprehensive critical theological study of Newman on Faith and Reason, or on Grace, or even on Ecclesiology?
WOW! I thought Convergent was some anti-Catholic Protestant. Ha ha! Anyway, I have to say at least one thing, even though I have a good idea of what your response will be.
In short, THANK GOD FOR SAINT PIO OF PIETRELCINA (1887-196
! Perhaps C. Bernard Ruffin wrote these words especially for you:
Padre Pio was almost an exact contemporary of Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), the German Lutheran theologian who, out of regard for the difficulty modern men and women have in accommodating the traditional teachings of Christianity to their twentieth-century perception, devised a theology that 'demythologized' the Gospels, stripping away such uncomfortable baggage and other accoutrements of a 'first century worldview' in order to get at what he believed to be the essential kernel of truth underlying all the 'mythological' paraphernalia. Bultmann's approach (or at least variations of it) has strongly colored much of the theological thinking of the last few decades. How different was Padre Pio - in style and in results! Without publishing a book or delivering a single universtiy lecture, he convinced thousands, even in the age of 'historical criticism' of the Bible and the 'Death of God' theologians, that miracles are not mythology but reality. Through his life and ministry, thousands came to accept the Bible and all the historical doctrines of Christianity.
"Padre Pio was also a contemporary of Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Albert Schweitzer, and other profound and learned theologians, but he has attested to communicate the existential presence of Christ more directly, more immediately, and to the satisfaction of many more people than did any of his immensely erudite contemporaries in their university chairs.
"Bultmann wrote in Kerygma and Myth: 'It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of demons and spirits.' Yet Padre Pio, Bultmann's contemporary, convinced many a learned man that angels appeared to translate letters he received in foreign languages, that he cast out devils, and that he was, on many occasions, knocked bodily to the floor by irate demons.
"Here was a man living in the time of air travel and astronauts, of moving pictures and mass communication, of computers and communications satellites, who lived the life a biblical prophet or apostle and is reputed by rational people to have worked miracles similar to those performed by the prophets of the Old Testament and the aposltes of the New. Here was a man in whom, if hundreds of testimonies can be believed, these words of Christ seem to have been fulfilled: 'He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also" (John 14:12)." (quoted from Padre Pio: The True Story, page 16)
It's incredibly difficult to rationalize how a man can receive the stigmata and lose a pint of blood a day for 50 YE
NeoCath asks: "But what is there to believe beyond the embellishments? the Incarnation? The Resurrection? What are we to keep and not do away with?"
IMHO, do what I have done by researching the historic Jesus, Paul, and Constantine and judge for yourself. The books by Crossan especially his The Historic Jesus, The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, would be a good starting point.
An interesting observation by Crossan in the referenced book on p.422 of the paperback edition:
"By the end of the first century, two great religions, rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity, were emerging from a common matrix. Each claimed to be its only legitimate continuation and each had texts to prove that claim. Each, in fact, represented an equally surprising , and equally magnificent leap out of the past and into the future."
" Did Judaism give too little in failing to convert the Roman Empire? Did Christianity give too much?"
You can read whatever scholars you want, Convergent. But the Kingdom of God doesn't reside in words but in power. Jesus and His Apostles didn't just talk about the Kingdom, they made it present! Almighty God continues to raise up saints in every generation who likewise make His Kingdom present. This is what you have to confront, the reality of the Kingdom. St. Pio and Venerable Cardinal Newman are only two of many vessels of this Kingdom.
Here's an interesting fact: Newman was an oratorian.I didn't know that until I meant oratorians and they told me about it.
I have always found Newman dry though. I had to stop reading his Apologia because I couldn't stay awake. Some of his sermons are better though.
Dr. Phil,
How is his epistemology (Grammar of Assent)? Will that help me at all, me being in a school formed within the analytic tradition?
Pio notes: "It's incredibly difficult to rationalize how a man can receive the stigmata and lose a pint of blood a day for 50 YE."
I agree (if the story has any validity- references/evidence) but the Capuchins would never allow a doctor to see Pio and that reaks of a coverup. And there was no evidence of a stigmata on his body after he died.
from: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a136.htm
"Question: What do you think about the stigmata of Padre Pio?
Answer: In the Catholic religion, there seems to be an endless sequence of paranormal occurrences: apparitions, weeping statutes, bleeding hosts, devout people with stigmata and so on. Being preoccupied with these things, Catholics often neglect the simple and pure devotion to Jesus Christ that comes from the understanding and obedience of His holy Word. Though we expect a greater degree of deception just before the coming of Christ, the Bible warns us that the "secret power of lawlessness is already at work" and people were and continue to be deceived by counterfeit miracles and signs (see 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11)."
from: http://www.forteantimes.com/
arti..._padrepio.shtml
"In perhaps the most extraordinary volte-face ever performed by the Vatican, its official line about Pio changed from regarding him as a psychopathic fraudster suspected of fornicating in the confessional to agreement that this simple friar from Apulia was a paragon of virtue so blessed with the power of God that just a touch of his cloak would suffice to cure disease."
"But a suspicious Vatican, under the leadership of Pope John XXIII, launched a series of investigations in 1960, including the bugging of his confession box, in an attempt to expose Pio as a fraud. Although there was no denying that the stigmata penetrated his hands, its report claimed that he used nitric acid to induce the wounds, and had assignations with women in his cell. The founder of Rome’s Catholic University Hospital said the monk was mad, a self-mutilating psychopath possessed of the devil who exploited people’s credulity. The so-called “odour of sanctity” accompanying his wounds was no more than eau de cologne applied for an indulgent sting of self-mortification. The Vatican banned him from taking Mass."
There are some good accounts of Pio in this referenced article but there are too many questions remaining and then there are those secret files of Congregation for the Causes of Saints!!
You sound like a fanatic atheist or something. I'm not trying to be rude, but do you really believe these things? I ask because it hardly sounds like rational thinking. At any rate, I'll quote C. Bernard Ruffin again. I have several books on St. Pio, but I'll stick with Ruffin because he's NOT Catholic.
"There can be no doubt that Padre Pio has persistent, bleeding wounds in his hands nearly fifty years. This fact is beyond dispute, since the wounds were seen by thousands of people over the years when he exposed his hands while saying Mass. Before the Holy Office forbade him, in the 1920s, to show his wounds, the stigmata were examined by several doctors. Apparently the first was Angelo Maria Merla, a physician who also served as San Giovanni Rotondo's mayor. He declared that the lesions were not, as some believe, the result of tuberculosis, but that he could not say with any certainty what caused them without extensive tests. Professor Giuseppe Bastianelli, personal physcian to Benedict XV, examined the wounds, but no written report of his examinations has come to light. Detailed reports do exist from three physicians who made exhaustive studies of the stigmata 1919 and 1920. Luigi Romanelli, physician-in-chief of the City Hospital in Barletta, examined Padre Pio's wounds five times between May 1919 and July 1920. Dr. Amico Bigmani, professor of pathology at the University of Rome, studied the stigmata over a period of several days in July 1919. Dr. Giorgio Festa, a surgeon in private practice at Rome, made three examinations of Padre Pio's wounds, the last in 1925, when the patient underwent a hernia operation. . . . No study was undertaken of the stigmata after Padre Pio's death for the singular reason tha the wounds disappeard entirely shortly before - without leaving the slightest trace or faintest scar!" (Padre Pio: The True Story, pages 160-161)
Padre Pio is called "A Saint of our times". This allowed for him to be heavily documented throughout his Christlike life. I know you have good reasons for holding your beliefs, but please realize that so do we.
The deception of the last days is the denial of God's present reign in the world. It began during the ministry of the Beloved Son: "'It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of dmons, that this man casts out demons.'" Jesus responded, "'But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, the the kingdom of God has come upon you.'" (Matt 12:22ff). This line of "reasoning" continued after the Resurrection as well: "While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the cieft priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sum of money to the soilders and said, 'Tell people, "His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep." And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.' So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day." (Matt 28:11ff)
The deception is when God uses St. Pio to give Gemma di Giorgi, a young girl who was born without pupils, 20/20 vision, and then the "rational" tell them that it's a fraud! The disciples asked Jesus, "'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' Jesus answered, 'It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him. We must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day.'" (John 9:1ff)
"Cardinal Newman on the Church: A Guide for the Perplexed
http://www.culturewars.com/Cultu...b98/
Newman.html
by John Beaumont"
==
Pio,
Please give evidence that the referenced blind girl was miraculously given eye pupils. Then there is the issue of fairness to the other blind of humankind.
With respect to my comments, I am only copying and pasting what is in the OPEN literature about Pio's history.
The doctor examinations done in the early 20's are at odds with the Vatican's investigation done in 1960. Who do we believe?
It would probably be more helpful to our conversation if you were to read a biography on St. Pio, and then argue against his divine mission. This would help much more than you trying to study the issue as we argue along. I recommend C. Bernard Ruffin's Padre Pio: The True Story. Ruffin is a Luthern pastor, so that gives him more objectivity than most biographies on St. Pio. His book is also heavily documented.
Bravo Convergent, what a pleseant surprise to read your refreshing post in this ocean of folks that just can not resist and need the miracle of the day to stay with the religion.
Seems to me that Jesus praised those that believed without requiring proof. For me it is a anchient reality that human beings love to believe in miracles - this is innocent fun at best but can turn to something entirly different if taken to serious.
While I appreciate that our religion tries to 'manage' miracles to sort out the most obvious fakes I can not help but find the miracle business more a catholic soap opera of sorts than anything else.
I find that this of convergents initial points sums it up very nicely:
"IMHO, a saintly life should be the only requirement for "sainthood". Time to eliminate the miracle requirement."
Bravo again
It's unfortunate that you can't see the most fundamental miracle of the Christian religion: namely, belief in the "Word [who] was with God, and the Word [who] was God . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." (John 1:1,14) Had you had eyes to see, you would know that Jesus' call to belief was a call to believe in this miralce we call the Incarnation.....May God bless you.
Blessed are they who do not see but still believe (That is faith)
As humans we do not understand God but IMHO we should be able nevertheless believe in god without paying lipservice to believes in earth bound physical miracles like the ones in question reg. Fr. Pio.
Scientist, engineers, plenty of fine theologians and regular folks do just fine without such fuzzy stuff.
Again IMHO belief in 'physical miracles" is innocent fun but not at the core of our religion at all.
I noticed that you've suddenly narrowed your use of the word miracles. At first it was "miracles" in general, now it is just "physical miralces". Nevertheless, it is precisely the "physical miracle" of the Incarnation that I'm talking about. This is the foundation for all other miracles.
Faith in God requires that God manifest Himself. He has done just that in the miracle of the Incarnation: "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days He has spoken to us by a Son" (Heb 1:1-2a). The Incarnate Word has called to believe in this miracle of God's grace (John chs 3 & 6).
This miracle of God's grace we call the Incarnation, is extended throughout history. Hence Jesus' words to the Twelve, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go the Father." (John 14:12) Our belief in Jesus, the Messiah-King, grafts us into Him (John 15:1-11). The more we grow in our union with Jesus, the more we make the Kingdom of God present in our lives and are therefore able to do the works that Jesus did.
Pio,
As per your NT references:
John 1: 1-14, only one NT reference and most contemporary biblical scholars, Catholic and non-Catholic, rate it a later embellishment.
John 1: 19-34 (not referenced in your commentary but as per Crossan "Jesus' baptism by John is one of the surest things we know about them both" 51+. Into the Desert: (1) Gos. Thom. 78; (2) 2Q: Luke 7:24-27 = Matt 11:7-10; (3) Mark 1: 2-3 = Matt 3:3 = Luke 3:4-6 =(?) John 1:19-23.
58+. John Baptizes Jesus: (1) Gos. Heb. 2; (2a) Mark 1:9-11 = Matt 3:13-17 = Luke 3:21-22; (2b) Gos. Naz. 2; (2c) Gos. Eb. 4; (2d) John 1:32-34; (2e) Ign. Smyrn. 1:1c; (3) Ign. Eph. 18:2d
Heb 1: 1-2a - Yes Hebrews is in the NT but most scholars conclude that it was not written by Paul.
John 14: 12- not from the historic Jesus but a later embellishment as per most contemporary biblical scholars.
John 15: 11-12 from the historic Jesus
4+. Ask, Seek, Knock
1a) Gos. Thom. 2 & P. Oxy. 654:2; (1b) Gos. Thom. 92:1; (1c) Gos. Thom. 94; (2) Gos. Heb. 4ab; (3) 1Q: Luke 11:9-10 = Matt 7:7-8; (4) Mark 11:24 = Matt 21:22; (5a) Dial. Sav. 9-12; (5b) Dial. Sav. 20d; (5c) Dial. Sav. 79-80 ; (6a) John 14:13-14; (6b) John 15:7; (6c) John15:16; (6d) John16:23-24; (6e) John16:26.
John's Gospel is the least reliable of the four Gospels. You might want to quote from the other three.
Another "miracle" problem: John's Gospel lists seven miracles performed by Jesus. All have been rated as embellishments by many contemporary biblical scholars.
The Vatican continues to remain silent on these ratings.
St. Pio,
The reason that these folks don't like to admit to real manifestations of the supernatural in this world is that it undercuts their post-modernists project of turning the faith into a desiccated cipher and God into a question mark. All one can do when confronted by such retches is to pray for them and hope that the Holy Spirit will touch their hearts with conversion.
St Pio,I am perfectly at ease with your position - many strongly believe in that kind of need for a miracle as manifestation of divine intervention.
What I am not at ease with however is that you insist that you are correct. You can never know that. Again for me there is a profound difference between what we humans describe with a word/concept like 'miracle" and the many potentially unimaginable ways God can reveal himself to us - if God so wishes.
You write: "Faith in God requires that God manifest Himself".
Requires? Why? The holy spirit can work in ways that are entirely invisible - nothing is required per se IMHO.
Why stop at one miracle why not requesting 10 or 100? All arbitrary human numbers as far as I am concerned just like my 0.
In a nutshell: if we assume that I would propose zero miracles and you at least one - I would argue the only thing faith requires is that we trust God. God will reveal himself with or without miracle.
By the way, the concept of being right or wrong is allready a very human contamination of an otherwise pure thing.
Jesus gave us only two commandments - believing in miracles was not one of them as far as I recall.
For all practical purposes however most certainly we as human beings have our traditions, and scriptures and stories of stories retold from generation to generation, all humans like gossip and miracles and wonderous things. We all particualr love the emotion attached with it. I remember being facinated by this book about Saints my parents had around - oh the wonderous stories - to imagine -to dream - the possibilities.
This is all very real and I suppose very good.
I also have no issue whatsoever with all those that embark on pilgrimages of one sort or the other to the various miracle sites. If it helps them to become better human beings, to love thy neighbors more profoundly, to be at peace within and provide better for there families and in the world - WONDERFUL.
If it leads however to a claim to know better - to be right - to know the truth -than I do not much care for such 'miracles'.
I respect you for your deep felt believes - I do not care for the "only truth" aspects of many appologetics.
I happen to believe - like you I assume- that God seems to guide us all somehow in ways that lead to a good path in life and beyond.
For some of us this might require profoundly bleeding hands, or other medical and physical miracles etc. that is all fine with me and perhaps does not much harm - it is however not required at all IMHO to do the Lords work here on earth.
Certainly many of us happen not to believe in simple physical miracles and little cute tricks - even the Vatican is rather very sceptical of most claims for good reasons particularly since pagans traditionally loved nothing more than miracles and supernatural things.
For me God reveals himself if he/she wishes in ways that might not be evident to us at all - the word miracle is not required to have faith in t
"The Vatican continues to remain silent on these ratings."
The Vatican also remains silent on the claims of the flat earthers -- obvioiusly because they know it is impossible to prove that the earth is a sphere.
Grega,
Are you a Christian? Or are you just theist? Do you believe in absolute truths? I assumed that the answer to all these questions was yes. Forgive me if I assumed wrongly.
I do not claim much merit it in, but I blogged an unfinished biography of Newman on his 160th anniversary; it ends with his reception into the Catholic Church. More importantly, his collected works are available on-line at Newman Reader, along with considerable biographical material.
Convergent,
I now see that the issues are much more fundamental than I first thought. I also see that Dr. Blosser's blog is not the place to argue them out, although I would think that Dr. Blosser would be far more competant at arguing the philosophical foundations of the Christian Faith than myself (hint, hint, Dr. Blosser).
I will end our conversation by saying that it is much easier for Crossan to argue against the Sacred Scriptures, than it is for him to argue against the Communion of the Saints, especially St. Pio of Pietrelcina. Had the living God given mankind only a glimpse of His Kingdom 2,000 years old, it would've been all to easy for men to disregard it. But as it is, in every age the Almighty God makes His Kingdom present in His saints. I hope you include the lives of the saints in your studies. Jesus left the world His saints because man cannot "demythologize" them in the same way they can a text. In other words, like the Pharisees and Sudducees you can argue with Jesus about the meaning of Sacred Scripture, but eventually Jesus will say, "Okay, now watch this." And then right in front of your eyes He will raise someone from the dead, heal a paralytic, restore a withered hand, give sight to the blind. I only hope that in your confrontation with the power of the Kingdom of Jesus you will not "demythologize" Him like Bultmann or "demonize" Him the the Sanhedrin.
Of course miracle stories must be checked skeptically and of course John's Gospel is not primarily a literal historical story, though it no doubt contains historical traditions (see CH Dodd's book on this for starters). The reliability of John lies on another plane, his spiritual understanding of the significance of Jesus, as summarized in John 1.14.
The Gospels are full of miraculous signs and wonders, but Jesus sometimes reproves those who focus excessively on them.
Most of the miracles are healing miracles, and their psychosomatic quality is indicated by such remarks as "your faith has saved you". Grace works through such psychosomatic mechanisms.
Miracles that positively contradict the laws of nature rather than bringing out hidden virtualities in nature under the power of grace -- miracles such as the reanimation of a corpse, the creation of matter ex nihilo or by transubstantiation of one physical substance into another (the carbon atoms in the wine at Cana, the multiplied loaves and fishes), the male chromosomes of Jesus) -- are naturally exposed to greater skepticism, especially when the textual basis leaves lots of space for taking them as legends.
Jesus never uses miracles as a knockdown argument. The miracles always demand to be interpreted, with the eyes of faith; the Pharisees were notoriously unimpressed by any of Jesus' miracles.
It is very doubtful if one may meaningfully call the Incarnation a physical miracle, or even if one can call the eucharistic transubstantiation a physical miracle.
Hey JP,
Based on previous discussions, you can do better than "flatlander" reasoning!!
Hmmm, the Vatican had no problem with "geocentric earth" theology for centuries and Galileo felt the sting of the Vatican Inquisition when he proposed a counter idea. "In 1616 a committee of consultants declares to the Inquisition that the propositions that the Sun is the center of the universe and that the Earth has an annual motion are absurd in philosophy, at least erroneous in theology, and formally a heresy. On orders of the Pope Paul V, Cardinal Bellarmine calls Galileo to his residence and administers a warning not to hold or defend the Copernican theory; Galileo is also forbidden to discuss the theory orally or in writing. Yet he is reassured by Pope Paul V and by Cardinal Bellarmine that he has not been on trial nor being condemned by the Inquisition."
I guess NASA TV is not on the Vatican's favorite's list 
For $20 million, B16 could take a ride to the ISS and see for himself.
But hey, after seeing the bleakness of Mars through the eyes of two Rovers, everything on Earth could be considered a miracle.
How unconvincing! I continue to maintain that the Vatican's failure to issue a rebuttal to flatearthism proves that flatearthism is true!!!!
Notorious Irish columnist Kevin Myers deals with JHN and Cobh Cathedral today:
The cause for the canonisation of John Henry Cardinal Newman has been furthered by the apparent recovery from spinal disease of a deacon in Boston, writes Kevin Myers.
This is a long wait for the requisite miracle from a man who died in 1890. "I had to tell [ Pope] John Paul that the English are not very good at miracles," explained Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor. "It's not that we are not pious, but the English tend to think of God as a gentleman who should not be bullied." As it happens, the Vatican didn't need the Boston miracle, because the Cardinal was miraculously writing to this very newspaper, on the very same day, in a letter infused with tractarian piety.
"Madam", it began, "I note in your edition of October 17th that Dublin City Council is proposing to abolish the public right-of-way in the laneway Faith Avenue and Hope Avenue, Dublin. Could the council, in this case, be accused of a lack of charity? - Yours, etc, JOHN NEWMAN, Dublin 11." No, I'm not making this up. On October 19th, the very day of the Boston revelation, that letter appeared in The Irish Times. And remember - Dublin 11 is the home of Glasvenin cemetery. Now it could be that John Henry is a Cockney, and speaks in elaborate rhyming slang. Eleven. Glasnevin. Meaning Heaven (thought there is little evidence of rhyming slang in Apologia pro Vita Sua). So it seems that God has actually chosen to locate heaven in Dublin 11.
Until this revelation, you always thought you'd take wing to somewhere special once you got buried in Glasnevin, when in fact, the entire saved world - Michelangelo, Mother Teresa, even John Henry himself - is destined to shuffle in to join you there, and spend the rest of eternity in that divine purlieu between Phibsboro and Finglas.
I used to live around there. It was nice enough, but I never thought it was close to heaven. Which only goes to show that you don't know what you've got till you've gone. And it also puts the northside jokes in their place: everyone, regardless of rank, will have to make it past the pearly gates on the threshold of Glasnevin. It is clearly no coincidence that the Catholic church in Phibsboro is St Peter's.
So all those southsiders who have been preening themselves on their ignorance of the far side of the Liffey will spend the rest of eternity with cheerful northsiders drinking bottles of stout, smoking untipped cigarettes and ruthlessly being characters. So it seems heaven is like being trapped in a Roddy Doyle novel, with a chip-van, and horses ascending in lifts, incompetent robbers and people hilariously bawling FUQ! - and not for 190 pages, but for all time. How utterly spiffing. So where is hell? And what does it consist of? Dalkey. Bono.
However, if another clerical John, namely Magee, Bishop of Cloyne, wants to find all about hell, he should continue with his proposals to wreck St Colman's Cathedral in
However, if another clerical John, namely Magee, Bishop of Cloyne, wants to find all about hell, he should continue with his proposals to wreck St Colman's Cathedral in Cobh. It almost passes belief that, 40 years after Vatican II, with its many virtues and its equal number of infamies, any senior churchman would want to continue with the programme of architectural conformism which has had such a catastrophic consequences for Catholic building projects around the world. What you might call the V2 effect.
Subsequent church buildings have resembled tepees, igloos, sheds, garages, hangars, slaughter-houses, theatres-in-the round - anything but the cruciform constructions which defined Christian architecture for a millennium-and-a-half.
St Colman's is one of the most noble and inspiring Catholic churches in Ireland. It was designed by Sir Edward Pugin, the finest British architect of the 19th century, and - after John Henry - perhaps the greatest English Catholic of the time. He did other work in Ireland - notably Killarney Cathedral, which was a temple to magnificent, wedding-cake, neo-Gothic plasterwork. This was all but destroyed by that posturing wretch Eamon Casey, who stripped the cathedral's foundation rubble-stone of its gorgeous, irreplaceable plaster, in order to turn what was a Victorian work of art into a pastiche of a medieval abbey.
Most of us thought that, with the Catholic Church now holed up in its last redoubt, it would not attempt to alienate public opinion any further.
Quite the reverse - hence the modernist mumbo-jumbo to justify the proposed destruction of St Colman's sanctuary: "What we have at the moment is a significant spacial separation between the priest and all the people in the church." This is Californian cant. Of course, there's "a significant spacial separation" - otherwise known as "distance" - between priest and people.
The Holy Roman, Apostolic Church is a hierarchical institution, which is why the Pope doesn't live in a caravan in a halting-site outside Drogheda - and why, incidentally, Bishop John Magee goes around with a colossal decorated acorn on his head, otherwise known as a mitre.
Now if the Episcopal Cobh cove wants to cosy up to the people, aided by a few chords on his guitar, and whining some profound Bob Dylan song, well, he can do that in the Queenstown Mission Hall, strum strum strum: "The church it is a-changing". But it is not necessary to wreck Ludwig Oppenheimer's magnificent mosaic floor, or smash the altar rail, or the Episcopal side-chapel, as the Cloyne diocese intends.
The liturgical mood of today is not that of tomorrow, and the gentleman in Dublin 11 will not lightly forgive those who irreversibly violate Pugin's Irish masterwork.
For the record, I deplore the planned alterations of Cobh Cathedral, the most magnificent building in the vicinity of my birthplace. The people have protested strongly against this for years and they should be listened to. This Cathedral is a treasure that must not be tampered with.
St Pio:
Good questions.
"Are you a Christian?"
I consider myself catholic, certainly was raised that way and attend with my family catholic mass every sunday.
"Or are you just theist?"
Sometimes I wonder indeed - certainly I have not as much love lost as our Lord requested for my neighbors the religious Fundamentalist of all sorts - including our in house troupe- I think the word apologetics is the newest incarnation of basic know it better fundamentalism?
No, thus to your third question.
"Do you believe in absolute truths?"
For my taste way to much harm is done in this world exactly for that reason - insisting to know better and claiming absolute truth for oneself - very self-serving in my books.
Let me give you an example what the "truth" is in my opinion for example regarding the issue we discuss here "Miracles".
The truth is that human beings in all cultures, times, religions and of all races either firmly believed in or at least told stories of various "miracles".
The fact that we invented a word for this phenomina speaks for itself. On the other hand most of these "miracles" IMHO never happened. On the other hand, for me some of the "miracles" you and others mention here like Transubstantiation/the Incarnation/ The Resurrection are best not described with the word miracles but with "believe, faith and mystery" they reside in the mental or religious sphere and more likely have not much to do with an actual physical reality.
We humans certainly have fabulous imagination - which is a very charming character treat.
For me this all points more to the human nature as created by God than to anything else - Life itself is actually indeed miraculous.
Bleeding hands on the other hand seem awefully trivial and downright unimaginative.
I believe our creator has a bit more in store than what every other novelist or movie director could come up with - (and does come up with I might add).
Don't you think?
In former times, men who lost their faith had the courage and honesty to admit they had lost their faith, and they left the Church. Now, they have neither, and they stay and pretend they're smarter than the rest of us.
I think that the fact that "all cultures, times, religions and of all races either firmly believed in or at least told stories of various 'miracles'" is evidence, not that he is very imaginative, but that he is a spiritual being. And the fact that this is evidenced worldwide show this spiritual dimension of man to be an objective fact.
People don't claim that someone has been miraculously healed because they are very imaginative. If someone has been healed by terminal cancer it is because they have actually been healed, not because they have a future in writing novels.
Likewise, Truth is not a product of the human imagination. Truth is what are imagination needs. When imagination takes hold of truh it creates powerful imagery like Lord of Rings, or The Cronicles of Narnia, etc.
JP,
Well at least the Sun and planets still revolve about the earth. The Vatican declared it so. Or did they retract that belief? And are you positive the Vatican never, ever addressed "flatearth" theology?? After all that was "pre-geocentric earth" theology. And all those secret files to search!!! Ahh a solution, sell the files to Google and make a bundle on advertising!! "Googlizing the Vatican"- Great title for a new book?
You have to agree the current Vatican is in bureaucratic "do-nothing" overload!! Ahh, for the good ole days of Inquisitions, forbidden books and heresies Now those guys earned their keep.
Pio,
God gave us the knowledge and tools to make our own miracles. The Pio, Newman et al "miracles", IMHO, violate these gifts via hoaxes and embellishments.
How is his epistemology (Grammar of Assent)? Will that help me at all, me being in a school formed within the analytic tradition?
Apolonio,
Newman employs his own technical vocabulary and is thus something of a specialty, but the Grammar is an inductive argument for God's existence, as opposed to a more traditional deductive-metaphysical argument, and has its own merits. I suppose the Humean a posteriori inferential frame of reference would appeal to at least some in your analytic department, at least more than a more traditional Thomistic metaphysical approach.
"The Vatican continues to remain silent on these [remarkably silly-ass and reductionist 'Jesus' Seminar] ratings."
Other subjects upon which the Vatican remains startlingly silent:
(1) The liciety of dwarf-tossing;
(2) Tastes Great vs. Less Filling;
(3) Marisa Tomei's 1992 Oscar win;
(4) Charlie Weis' coaching acumen;
(5) How many angels can dance on the head of a Guinness; and
(6) Convergent's endless and fatally-flawed appeals to authority.
ECL:
"In former times, men who lost their faith had the courage and honesty to admit they had lost their faith, and they left the Church. Now, they have neither, and they stay and pretend they're smarter than the rest of us.
ELC"
Funny that you mention it - it goes perhaps well with the utterings about a leaner and better church - who are the arrogant ones those that assume they know it and exclude or those that are open to admitting that we can not really know?
Fundamentalism is flawed and will lead to not much good.
Our modern world has to rely on participation of ALL and free flow of knowledge and understanding.
This might scare some.
Claiming to know the truth certainly does not get us anywhere.
You fight for your opinion - i will do my share to voice my own.
I do not push you anywhere - you leave me and my family where we feel we belong.
This here are all just opinions - no claims to be smarter - if you indeed feel inferior with your claims than this might be telling.
Well as said it is just fine to believe in miracles - even in physical miracles. Scientist and engineers typically can however not rely on such fuzzy logic and have to get by with carefully studied and verified principles. Last time I checked a rather amazing and magnificent amount of technology was created not by believe in miracles but by carefully aquired knowledge of our surrounding.
As St Pio also pointed out the fact that our Lord enables us to such an extend is the true miracle.
You certainly are in no position to show anybody the door.
Grega,
What do you believe Jesus and the Apostles believed about absolute truth? Also, what do you believe about the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures?
grega:
I'm not trying to show anyone the door, so to speak, but I am genuinely puzzled: why stay with an organization when you obviously believe that it has and promotes such a delusional view of reality?
grega:
And please: drop the use of the term "fundamentalist" when speaking of opposing views. It is patronizing, vague/ambiguous to the point of uselessnes and almost always says more about the person using it than the person being described.
"Last time I checked a rather amazing and magnificent amount of technology was created not by believe in miracles but by carefully aquired knowledge of our surrounding."
And while that technology has made our fleshly existences rather more comfortable during the interval between our conceptions (assuming we're permitted to make it past conception to birth) and the time when we become worm food, that technology has not sent a single soul to heaven or prevented a single soul from sinking into hell. . . .
Dale:
first of all I do not know who if anybody is in effect a catholic fundamentalist here. Certainly it is understood that nobody cares to be classified this way.
We tend to think that the term relates to the Talibans of this world - it does not. We have plenty of religious fundamentalist right in our midth IMHO. You disagree - that is fine.
Here are parts of a description of Fundamentalism taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fun.../
Fundamentalism
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In comparative religion, fundamentalism has come to refer to several different understandings of religious thought and practice, including literal interpretation of sacred texts such as the Bible or the Quran and sometimes also anti-modernist movements in various religions.
In some ways religious fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture, even where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents' religion. The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite possible contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship.
Many groups described as fundamentalist often strongly object to this term because of the negative connotations it carries, or because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups, which they find objectionable."
I do not know if you or anybody here fits this bill, your objection to the term certainly fits the mold.
In our religion as in society there is a majority that is very willing to get along without excluding. And yes that means that perhaps not all scripture can be read literally today.
Others feel however that they understand the issues so well that they are in position to counteract, exclude, tell who is going or heaven or hell etc.
you name it.
grega:
We're off to a flying stop. "You don't like being called a fundamentalist therefore you probably are one" is a finalist for 2005's Greatest Leap of Illogic. Please. It would be insulting if it weren't so amusing.
Wikipedia's a nice source of facts, if cautiously and critically used, but an odd source for one's personal religious philosophy. De gustibus, I guess.
The insuperable problem of that article's definitions is that, depending on who is employing them, most of the population of the planet is frothing with evil fundamentalists. And, make no mistake, the article clearly indicates that it is an evil. The great irony of your citation of it is that, given your inflexible equation of Truth with--and only with--that which can be empirically verified, you could be called a fundamentalist yourself.
Also, the ham-fisted lack of nuance is startling--the behaviorial differences between, say, Judeo-Christian fundamentalists and the Islamic variety are obvious, along with the fact only the last has actual functioning governments. Ditto the inability to distinguish between literalist and inerrancy--they aren't hand-in-glove concepts, not by a long shot.
Be that as it may, I am more interested in your answer to the first question than an extended disquisition on the nature of fundamentalisms worldwide.
J.C. Higgins (related to the Professor?),
It is all about theology and truth!!We support the Vatican assuming "she" is our guiding light to the truth. When we read ubiquitous books by ex-priests and nuns (but still Catholic in good standing) where they question the physical Resurrection, one of the basics of our religion, and the Vatican remains silent, what are we to think???????????
JP,
There is a good review on the history of "flat earth theory-logy" at http://www.answersingenesis.org/...2/
flatearth.asp.
A selection: "Cosmas Indicopleustes and Church Fathers (Vatican?)
Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers (Vatican?), but liberal historians have usually claimed his view was typical of that of the Church Fathers.(Vatican?)
Many such historians have simply followed the pattern of others without checking the facts. In fact, most of the Church Fathers (Vatican?) did not address the issue of the shape of the Earth, and those who did regarded it as ‘round’ or spherical."
And yet the fact remains that not a single modern publication that advocates flatearthism has been formally critiqued by the Vatican -- obviously because they know that the earth is flat and just don't want to admit it!!!!!!
"How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires."
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
http://www.oecumene.radiovatican...lo.asp?
Id=33990
==
Dale;
thank you for taking my previous post with the proper amount of amusement and humor." grega
We're off to a flying stop.... Please. It would be insulting if it weren't so amusing."
Yes, you are most certainly correct the issue of fundamentalism and all the possible shades is not something I am in any position to touch.
I simply state my heartfelt perhaps simplistic POV.
Paul Borealis correctly pointed to a very eloquent passage from our Popes teaching describing the dangers of Relativism.
I certainly recognize and have to digest that some of that passage is directly applicable to folks like myself.
The church is not a democracy - our western societies on the other hand are.
Thus what we see in our culture and society is rather confusing.
There is unfortunately no way to short circuit the cumbersome process of sorting the good from the bad.
In our church and society we have vigerous debates about issues ranging from homosexuality over female ordination to more or less traditional liturgy and if lay people should have more or less say. Some people can not bring themself to follow the popes recommendation on just war ,death penalty etc. others do not see themself surrounded by quite as much Relativism. Oh well nobody can take the burden to make our mind up from us.
A healthy debate has never hurt anybody.
You want absolute advice?
Take for example as simple of an issue one would think as the review of the practices in our seminaries here in the US.
For all kinds of reasons the Vatican is not in any position to state clearly "no homosexuals as priests - period" - absolutes seem not to work IMHO- we have to look into each and every single person, we have to treat every single human being with utmost respect - this is very good but certainly smells like a lot of compromise. Certainly it seems relative difficult to keep it all together.
By the way most other religion struggle with this issue - we catholics are not alone.
JP,
"Modernists" are we all!!! And just what modern publications advocate a flat earth?
Paul,
Hmmm, B16 sure covered all the generalities in his address you pasted above. Maybe he will address someday the realities of dioceses paying billions in abuse settlements, a rapid decreasing priesthood, sisterhood and brotherhood, lack of attendance at Sunday Mass, "gutless" Cardinals/Bishops, and teachings at many Catholic universities that counter a lot of the "creedal" concepts (original sin, baptism, blood sacrifices, immaculate conceptions, and our single salvation Church).
grega says "perhaps not all scripture can be read literally today". This is a magnificent litotes!
I think Lactantius, one of the most learned men of his time, a Church Father associated with Constantine, was a flat-earthist.
Oh, I see Lactantius is mentioned in that link, with the notation: "His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived)."
I don't know of any discussion of his cosmological views by the Church Fathers. Lactantius's writings had an influence on Augustine.
The theory that the earth goes round the sun has some rare representatives in the early Christian centuries -- I think the name of Virgil of Salzburg is sometimes mentioned.
Here is a piece on my compatriot Virgil:
Virgil's cosmological speculations and their implications, which, as reported to Zachary by Boniface, the pope found very shocking. In 748, the pope directed Boniface to convene a council to investigate the questionable views, but the council was never convened. The incident has been the subject of much discussion and has been used and exaggerated for polemical purposes, but in fact it is far from clear what Virgil's ideas really were. It appears that Virgil postulated that the world was round and that people might be living in what would now be called the Antipodes. He was both a man of learning and a successful missionary, and even after his cosmological views were called into question, he was consecrated bishop of the see of Salzburg (c. 766), whose cathedral he rebuilt.
Virgil just postulated that the world might be round?
He was not even a Copernican avant la lettre?
Note that if this is so, then it was not flatearthism that was viewed as a heresy in those days but rather roundearthism.
"And just what modern publications advocate a flat earth?"
Why, any issue of Flat Earth News magazine. Why hasn't the Vatican critiqued a single issue of Flat Earth News if they really thought it was possible to disprove flatearthism????
JP,
Flat Earth News? Subcribers must number in the teens at least!!!
I guess the old time "Vaticaners" passed along a few good secrets about the real universe to their modern brothers.
Hum, I have been an on and off reader of this blog, and I have nothing to contribute at this point besides noting that the discussion has somehow digressed from Newman. Why is that?
Dr Blosser,
I'd like to discover Newmans writings.
Can you tell me by which of thses works I should begin to better grasp his spirituality ?
"Flat Earth News? Subcribers must number in the teens at least!!!"
So are you saying that publications that espouse nonsense, pseudo-science, and pseudo-history should not be presumed to be true in the absence of a formal Vatican critique and rebuke? Or is it only nonsense-purveying publications that have a large readership that should be presumed to be true in the absence of a formal Vatican critique and rebuke? Help me out here.
JP,
Give it a break!!! Flat earth theory is nonsense and the Vatican is not about to address the issue no matter the size of the publication.
Again, the Vatican is supposed to be the guardian of our Faith. When a large number of well-educated biblical scholars question the basics of our Faith and there is no response from the "guardians", it is disturbing to all Catholics IMHO.
Newman -- what to read?
For spiritual reading I recommend the Catholic sermons first, though there are not as many of them as the Anglican ones. Titles include "Discourses on Various Occasions" -- the prose style is supremely magnificent. The eight volumes of the Anglican "Pastoral and Plain Sermons" are cheaply available in one volume, Ignatius Press I think.
Some of Newman's most beautiful prayers are in a little book called "Meditations and Devotions."
For the intellectual Newman, The Arians in the Fourth Century; Lectures on Justification; University Sermons; An Essay on the Development of Doctrine; The Idea of a University; The Grammar of Assent are all musts; the Grammar is the least attractive to read.
The fifth, last, chapter of Apologia pro Vita Sua, is a very powerful expression of Newman's faith.
The Dream of Gerontius as set to music by Edward Elgar is a "sublime masterpiece" as Pius XII said when he heard it sung by a Dublin choir. The role of the Angel has been sung by Kathleen Ferrier (unrecorded, I think) and Janet Baker.
There are about twenty other volumes of N's published works in addition to those mentioned above; his Letters and Diaries fill thirty or more fat volumes; Dom Placid Murray is publishing early unpublished sermons.
I read somewhere that Newman had pen and paper close to hand when he was praying or meditating -- something that spiritual masters would disapprove of -- he was an addictive writer -- as the even more prolific Augustine, Aquinas, Barth, must also have been. Theologians are the worst of scribblers.
Spirit,
You noted: "Theologians are the worst of scribblers." I would expand that to "Theologians and philosophers are the worst of scribblers".
The four scribblers I mentioned are actually masters of expression and in a sense never waste words.
Are philosophers as bad? Yes, and they drown their carefully composed published works in endless indigestible reams of Nachlass assembled by devout sons, widows or disciples. The complete writings of Leibniz, Schelling and Husserl have not yet seen the light; one third of Schellins's Nachlass was incinerated in the bombing of Dresden. The Heidegger Gesamtausgabe has added mountains of drabness to the excellent set of books he published in his lifetime. including especially the horrible series of turgid jottings beginning with Beitraege zur Philosophie, vol. 65. Bergson's posthumous publications (forbidden by his will, as are Foucault's) add little to his reputation. Sartre is probably the most advanced case of graphomania in the last century; even as a kid he was always scribbling on all occasions.
You certainly are in no position to show anybody the door. Wow. I must really have hit the nail on the head. Especially since I wasn't even thinking of you, grega.
What's the line from Shakespeare? "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"? Ah, yes. That's it........
Hum, I have been an on and off reader of this blog, and I have nothing to contribute at this point besides noting that the discussion has somehow digressed from Newman. Why is that? I used to frequent several Catholic message boards. It seemed to me that, far more often than not, after two or three replies, the subject of the thread would be changed to something else. Somebody is probably doing some kind of psychological / sociological study about to figure out that kind of thing.
"Give it a break!!! Flat earth theory is nonsense and the Vatican is not about to address the issue no matter the size of the publication."
Yeah, and Crossan's assertions about Jesus and the New Testament are nonsense too.
"Again, the Vatican is supposed to be the guardian of our Faith. When a large number of well-educated biblical scholars question the basics of our Faith and there is no response from the 'guardians', it is disturbing to all Catholics IMHO."
And when has that happened? You think the lack of a specific critique of one of Crossan's books means the Church has no responded to the kind of drivel he believes in? If so, then I point once again to the lack of a Vatican critique of even one issue of Flat Earth News.
If you want the Church's response to the kind of bilgewater produced by Crossan, then read Pascendi.
JP,
Pascendi is an official of the Vatican?
The Vatican, IMHO, does not need to address any of Crossan's 14 books or the other ~100 analogous books by other biblical scholars. What the Vatican needs to do is critique the the basic conclusions of these scholars especially the conclusions that there was no physical Resurrection and the reported miracles (getting back on the thread to some degree) were embellishments to impress the Gentiles.
And I assume you still have not read any of Crossan's books completely?
Convergent, have a look at the documents of the Vatican Pontifical Commission. They are usually very good and respond to scholars like Crossan speaking the language of the scholars.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/
researc...christology.htm
This 1985 statement on Scripture and Christology could be a good place to begin.
Since 1971, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) is no longer an official organ of the Catholic Church. It is a consultative body of scholars whose conclusions are looked to with great respect by the Church.
Here is a 2001 document on THE JEWISH PEOPLE
AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES
IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE
http://www.vatican.va/
roman_curi...ebraico_en.html
SVII, thanks for your detailled answer...
I'll see what is available in french and begin to read...
"Theologians are the worst of scribblers" The style don't really care : what is important is what is expressed, even if, a good style makes the reading easier !
"Pascendi is an official of the Vatican?"
No, but it IS a papal encyclical. If what you desire is a foundational critique of "the basic conclusions of these scholars especially the conclusions that there was no physical Resurrection and the reported miracles . . . were embellishments to impress the Gentiles," then Pascendi is a great place to start.
"And I assume you still have not read any of Crossan's books completely?"
Of course not. I've also not read any flatearthist propaganda. Why waste time reading pseudo-scholarly balderdash that denies the Resurrection and the miracles of Jesus? Giving serious consideration to Crossanism would be just like taking flatearthism seriously.
Spirit,
Danke schoen!! I appreciate your time and effort. Since JP is limited to reading only Vatican-approved documentation, one must assume he has read the references but found nothing but the usual theological, non-specific scribble. But maybe he missed something especially if it was written by someone from the "flatearth".
Actually, I sincerely believe he has read some of Crossan's books but is afraid they are on the List of Forbidden Books and he might get excommunicated if I report him to Cardinal "Law".
Wow, these words by Anne Rice really reminded me of the O'Leary-Convergent-Grega anti-Christian crowd:
"...she immersed herself not only in Scripture, but in first-century histories and New Testament scholarship—some of which she found disturbingly skeptical. 'Even Hitler scholarship usually allows Hitler a certain amount of power and mystery.'."
Source http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9785.../site/newsweek/
Hey "Old Catholic",
That is not nice at all. Even JP does not use the "Nazi" card.
"Actually, I sincerely believe he has read some of Crossan's books but is afraid they are on the List of Forbidden Books and he might get excommunicated if I report him to Cardinal 'Law'."
If that were the case, wouldn't it be you who should be worried? After all, you like to quote Crossan and the Jesus Seminar as if they were Holy Scripture.
No "Nazi card"... Those are Ms. Rice's words, not mine.
Is Anne Rice our Emmerich? She could do worse than read Schweitzer on the Quest of the Historical Jesus.
JP,
No problem, report me to the "Protector of Felons".
As per quoting Crossan et al- I consider it quoting Scripture, the real Scripture absent of embellishments.
Anne Rice -- I read something by her years ago. All soap opera breathlessness and cheap perfume, with spritzes of comic book gore. I guess she's mined out the vampire seam, and so has to find new things to write about. Of course, this requires the staging of a major lifestyle change, adding a new act to the ongoing play of her wondrously artistic life. All these creative types regard their lives as plays, or perhaps these days as television series -- emoting events.
Of course, if she almost faced judgement recently, some of the posing may be real. But her sudden devoutness notwithstanding, she's not above plundering her faith for material for fictive toys -- not unlike Fr Joe.
"As per quoting Crossan et al- I consider it quoting Scripture, the real Scripture absent of embellishments."
Yes, I thought that was pretty obvious.
JP,
Read Crossan's The Historical Jesus for added details on what really happened in the first century CE. Used copies are available for $3.15 via www.amazon.com.
First century Church of England? Shouldn't that be 16th. century Church of England?
Just kidding.
Oh, wait a minute, I forgot about St. Joseph of Arimathaea, Glastonbury, the Holy Grail, Arviragus, and all that -- not to mention the legends that Aristobulus, St. Paul, and St. Simon Zelotes made missionary visits to Britain . . . .
JP,
See http://www.centuryone.com/rmnwrd.html for some maps and history of First Century CE if there is any confusion about the time period.
Newman's Britannia is included (getting back to the original topic to some degree).
Crossan's The Historical Jesus and his and Reed's Excavating Jesus will have more details about Jesus'local.
It's not "CE", it's Anno Domini.
As for 1st century Britain, "Jerusalem" may not be absolutely true, but it surely is a fine anthem.
I'm a traditionalist. "A.D." is a relatively late novelty of Dionysius Exiguus and St. Beda the Venerable. We should go back to the "A.P." of Victorinus -- the year of the Passion, not the year of the Nativity.
Or better yet, "A.U.C.," or even the Era of the Seleucidae!
Dr Blosser,
Looking for an idea for a new topic?
Consider this:
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vn...6/
435f125488af9
Commenting by HaloScan
