Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Theologians
Topic Started: Sunday, 17. January 2010, 01:59 (633 Views)
Gerard

PJD,

Having just said it all seems the same to me I will have ago at answering. But i am using everyday meanings of these words and everyday understanding of how we describe these thing - not technical language.

Actually, I had a little difficulty even recognising the involvement of the senses. What is involved is a loss in concentration - an aspect of mind. But if I take that as a sense (enjoyment in reading, or functioning of an ability) I still think it will be governed by will. The will wanted to be spiritual and allowed itself to be self deluded. What we would now describe as happening at the sub concious level.

Another way I read the statements was that there was a genuine hightening of interest in things spiritual and fall of in interest in things secular which he was allowing to be exaggerated. I still think the will is in control perhaps at a sub concious level or even just by allowing the emotions to take the mind in the direction it wants it to go.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Quote:
 
"Von Hugel was ‘convinced that a healthy ecclesiology required the elements of the institutional, the mystical and the intellectual to be held together in balance’. "


Actually, I spent too long on the differences and not enough time on the similarity - which is important. catholics tend to be very aware of the institutional but not the mystical or charismatic. particularly so in this age of reason. But then I am reminded that the inquisition was always nervous of the mystical so perhaps its not so much to do with reason as with the antipathy held by the institution to the charismatic/mystical.

Wasnt a problem for Paul (or Peter) so I wonder when the tension set in? Probably early on. Gnostics? I wonder was Von Hugel saying something controversial? Pope JPII was saying something unusual in that statement - the statement is obious (I think) but it was unusual for a Pope to affirm the charismatic dimension.

Gerry

"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD

"antipathy held by the institution to the charismatic/mystical."

Yes Gerry I will agree with that.

PJD

[St. John of The Cross was put into prison.]

[St. Teresa of Avila had a hard time of it in relation to Church authorities.]

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomais

It's a job.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD

Unpaid here Tomais, and for you also

PJD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

As you are aware, I have occasionally expressed less than adulatory remarks about theologians telling God what He thought and did - or, at any rate, what they think He should have thought and done!

At the weekend, I just couldn't stop myself being amused when we were told from the Second Reading:
The wisdom of this world is foolishness to God.
The Lord knows wise men's thoughts: He knows how useless they are.
God is not convinced by the arguments of the wise.

(1 Corinthians, chapter 3)
Rather put things in perspective, I thought!
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Anne-Marie, by the same logic, if we have no need to take notice of theologians, why accept that what St Paul writes is correct? Do you acknowledge that theologians had the wisdom to decide which writings were inspired by God?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CARLO
Member Avatar

I think there are theologians and theologians.

The great Doctors of the Church e.g. St Gregory the Great and St Theresa of Avila are of great standing and to be taken seriously. We can learn so much from them.

However just because somebody has a Certificate in Theology today seems to qualify them to use the term 'Theologian' and to hold forth on all sorts of subjects. Many if not most Priests hold some certificate or other in theology, so do many laypeople.

Personally I take with a great pinch of salt what modern day 'theologians' say - often they are doing little more than following the liturgical fashions of the day, or indeed of yesterday!

Pax


CARLO
Judica me Deus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD

"As you are aware, I have occasionally expressed less than adulatory remarks about theologians telling God what He thought and did - or, at any rate, what they think He should have thought and done!"

Anne-Marie: I had to back-track a couple of pages because you resurrected this topic. Reading your remark above, for myself I became aware that the topic itself mixes up what one might call philosophy/metaphysics with theology. Myself being one of such.

PJD

[edit. I noticed e.g. Carlo kept strictly to theology]
Edited by PJD, Wednesday, 23. February 2011, 18:56.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

Rose of York
Wednesday, 23. February 2011, 17:13
Anne-Marie, by the same logic, if we have no need to take notice of theologians, why accept that what St Paul writes is correct? Do you acknowledge that theologians had the wisdom to decide which writings were inspired by God?
Quite possibly, Rose. It was just the Reading text combined with my thoughts that amused me.
As you all know, I tend to avoid theology (theory) and focus on a relationship with God Reality), whom I do not pretend to be capable of understanding!
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Anne-Marie
Wednesday, 23. February 2011, 19:27
As you all know, I tend to avoid theology (theory) and focus on a relationship with God Reality), whom I do not pretend to be capable of understanding!
Were the epistles personal theories of the writers, or inspired the Word of God?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ned

I went along to Heythrop College on Friday and listened to the three theologians - Paul Knitter, Gavin D'Costa and Dan Strange - debate "Only One Way In ?" - http://www.heythrop.ac.uk/research/centre-for-christianity-and-interreligious-dialogue/events/past-events.html

It was thought-provoking but somewhat depressing.

I keep on thinking of Paul Knitter - have a look at http://vimeo.com/21158614

He's a very modest and humble man. He was a Divine Word Missionary, but with the demeanour of a Jesuit (He'd been a student at a Jesuit establishment, and had also taught for many years at a Jesuit institution.).

He's very approachable and I had a little chat with him in the lunch hour. There's no doubting his strong personal integrity. He's a buddhist, and he sees himself as a Christian Buddhist.

But what I want to know is this: How can it be that people can be accepted for seminaries, and then for ordination, and then be assigned as theologians, who does not believe with every fibre of their being that really, actually, and uniquely - rather than figuretively and metaphorically - Jesus was the Son of God?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Searcher

Ned
Thursday, 28. January 2010, 04:38
One prominent advocate of the new theology is Micheal Ledwith.

Micheal Ledwith, L.Ph., L.D., D.D., LL.D., was a Professor of Theology at Maynooth College; he was Dean of the Faculty of Theology; then Vice-President; then for ten years he was President of the College.

He also served as Chairman of the Committee of Heads of the Irish Universities and as a member of the governing Bureau of the Conference of European University Presidents (CRE).

For seventeen years he was a member of the International Theological Commission, a small group of eminent theologians who advise the Holy See on theological matters; for most of that time the Commission’s President was Cardinal Ratzinger. Micheal Ledwith personally authored three of the Commission’s documents.

In recent years Micheal Ledwith has been the centre of several controversies. Joseph O’Leary writes in his blog http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/06/a_hounded_pries.html that -
Quote:
 
“He was the first senior student I encountered on entering Maynooth in September 1966, in the rooms of the music professor Fr. Charles O'Callaghan.
I always found him to be an intelligent, witty, courteous gentleman, though I imagine he discomfited many by pulling the rug from under their pretensions.
His theology was what we would now call ‘New Age’ and indeed his more recent career has carried this tendency to its most flamboyant extreme.”
Joseph O’Leary’s blog is well worth a read-through. It made me think. But here I’m writing about Micheal Ledwith the theologian; and I’d like to point out that as a young student his theology was ‘New Age’.

You can hear him talk about himself - and his time at Maynooth and on the Commission - if you watch the first ten minutes of Cum a devenit Iisus un Christos - a doua parte http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5739584448240624455&ei=9_RgS6SPL4G0-Abh_aTDCA&q=michael+ledwith&hl=en#

The video’s title is in Romanian, but the dialogue is in English, with Romanian subtitles.
Hi Ned

Thank you for the link to Miceal Ledwith, L.Ph., L.D., D.D., LL.D I not only watched the first 10 minutes of this video i took notice of the credits, and i was at first amazed at his tolerance for the obscure and the esoteric,; but theologians absolutetly must tread the boundaries of belief in an independant study similar to scientific study because their workplace like the scientists is IDEAS, a sure and certain GIFT of God.

I feel sad that a man of obvious intellectual talent should be thrown into an environment which is beneath his intellectual stature but at the same time i realise these are the cards that are dealt to him and as a player he must improvise what else can he do and what else does he know.

If my understanding of Micael is right his decision to endorse his intellectual studies his underlying impetus is that he will be true to himself.

In the competition of ecclesiastical promotion i believe he was a target of unbridled ambition, and i believe he has stood his ground, but that ground is not the ground of the boundaries of faith it is the ground scientific faith and the knowledge of the influence of faith movements which have influenced the people and the fathers of our faith, none of which is esssential for the salvation of the believer.

I really am sorry to see an educated man in such a predicament but i will declare him bettter in Gods eyes than his contemporaries.

Hope you read this Miceal

The Searcher
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomais

55 theologians-55 bases for disputation.
They speak amongst themselves and talk to each other;a closed shop to the 99% of others.
Their books are in the £ 30.00 plus bracket.
Finnigans Wake can often be better understood.
Think of a world with half a dozen of them; yes, only six a side! Great! And less university etc., funding.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Ned
Wednesday, 19. October 2011, 01:58
I keep on thinking of Paul Knitter - have a look at http://vimeo.com/21158614

He's a very modest and humble man. He was a Divine Word Missionary, but with the demeanour of a Jesuit (He'd been a student at a Jesuit establishment, and had also taught for many years at a Jesuit institution.).

He's very approachable and I had a little chat with him in the lunch hour. There's no doubting his strong personal integrity. He's a buddhist, and he sees himself as a Christian Buddhist.

But what I want to know is this: How can it be that people can be accepted for seminaries, and then for ordination, and then be assigned as theologians, who does not believe with every fibre of their being that really, actually, and uniquely - rather than figuretively and metaphorically - Jesus was the Son of God?
Accepted for seminary by a bishop on the recommendation of the parish priest and diocesan vocations director, observed by lecturers and seminary rector, then by other priests after ordination, possibly some complaints made by laity. It does make one wonder about the selection of the people I list. Pals in a clique?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply