Is the American Catholic Church Anti-Intellectual
posted by: noelfitz
March 10, 2008
3:32 pm
In a recent discussion about "They were the best of times; they were the worst of times"? I wrote
American Catholicism it seems to me (as I have written before) sometimes appears anti-intellectual, anti-scholarship, anti-learning and anti-education.
I had expected that I would get a response to this opinion. Sometimes to get a discussion going one needs to be provocative and over-state a case, so perhaps I may exaggerate a little.
Even here in this round-table the anti-education bias of the American Catholic Church may be seen. We have had a number of posts denigrating knowledge, admittedly led by one person, but the defence of knowledge and learning was not very strong.
In our local Catholic paper, The Irish Catholic, in an article supposedly about the new Jesuit Superior, Fr Adolfo Nicolas SJ, George Weigel launched into a very harsh criticism of the Jesuits, who for centuries have been at the forefront of Catholic scholarship and education.
First of all he attached Fr James Keenan SJ of Boston College. Then he attached Fr Robert Drinan SJ of Georgetown University. He followed that up with an attack on an old web site of the Jesuits’ California Province.
He then followed these specifics with a general attack on Jesuits, including the accusation that some Jesuits, especially in Asia, have denied the unique salvific role of Christ.
I get emails about performances of the Vagina Monologues in Notre Dame University and attempts to get its President, Fr Jenkins, to ban these performance. I agree with this campaign, as it is not about academic standards.
Fr Richard McBriien of Notre Dame University has been attacked here in this forum, perhaps unfairly.
You might like to glance at http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/change/sub.asp?key=98&subkey=1117&printable=true
and
It seems Catholic Institutes of higher education have their problems. However perhaps it is rash for ordinary Catholics. Without a theological background, to condemn them too comprehensively and give vent to an anti-intellectual bias.
Catholics have their critics. Perhaps we, Catholic should remember the words of Benjamin Franklin "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: lpioch
March 10, 2008
3:49 pm
Noel,
It is a good set of questions you pose here. First, I will address the last. "We must all hang together." It depends on what "together" means. Is one Catholic simply because one proclaims to be Catholic? Is one Catholic simply because one is baptized into the Catholic faith? What about those that profess, openly and intentionally, heresy? Are they still Catholic?
This isn't a question of "who is a good Catholic and who is a bad Catholic?" There isn't such a thing. We are all sinners. However, I do have to suggest that those that openly disdain the authoritative teachings of the Church and teach contrary to the Church have already left the Church even if they haven't completed the "change of address" request.
In recognizing their error, those within the Church are not the ones separating "them" from "us." Those that choose to reject the teachings of the Church have themselves separated from the Church. It is charity for those remaining to point out the objective reality of error...in case those that want to remain faithful to the Church may be unclear about the teachings of the Church and could be led unknowingly astray by the heresy.
I, for one, embrace the intellect that God has given us. How else do we come to know our Triune God? It is a gift he has given us, by making us in His image and His likeness. God is pure Intellect and pure Will.
The danger is letting intellectualism become a religion in and of itself. If the intellect and will are not properly formed by the faith, then it is worth nothing.
I don't think this is Anti-Intellectual. It is anti-idolatry. Idolizing one's own mind above the Mind of God. Which is exactly what happens when one strays from the Church's teachings and spouts heresy.
posted by: noelfitz
March 10, 2008
4:09 pm
Loretta
Thank you so much for your immediate clear and positive response.
I did write:
Sometimes to get a discussion going one needs to be provocative and over-state a case, so perhaps I may exaggerate a little.
However do you think the views I expressed have some truth in them?
Here in this round-table we did have attacks on "knowledge". However you did contribute in your usual expert and balanced way to point out the Catholic view.
Thank you, once again.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
PS: I am very pleased with the recent discussions which have been without personal attacks. NF
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: fishman
March 10, 2008
8:53 pm
I do not think there is an anti-education bias in the unites states catholic church. The balanced "catholic" prespective knowledge and intellect is sometimes portrayed as anti-education because it does not declare the absolute superiority of the rational mind over all other kinds of knowing as is sometimes execptected in the west. Also, there is a tendancy by certain groups to attempt to wage war against the church as whole based on the idea that the church is 'anti-science' but these usually come from one of the very libreral branches of protestantism.
Most people don't like to hear this , but the rational mind, and human science itself have thier proper limits and uses. If sustaining that premise is 'anti-intellectual' I'd say the church itself rightly deserves the title.
American catholics in my expierence at least as educatated and perhapse somewhat more educated then the average american.
There is a certain anti-intelectualsim that exists within the american culture itself. Espcially amongst evengelican protestants and perhapse is seen in the writings or culture biases of some members of this disscussion form. The heresies of protestantism are as varied as the colours on nature and many of them show up from time to time amongst catholics in america because they permiate our culture.
posted by: Zachaeus
March 10, 2008
10:30 pm
This is an excellent thread. Thank you Noel!
lpoich brings to the table so many points that I would like to comment on--from the "contra" position of course--that I don't know where to begin. Now...to find the time to do so. (For now I will simply add this thread to "my discussions" by making this post.)
But for starters, lpoich asks. "What about those that profess, openly and intentionally, heresy? Are they still Catholic?" My answer: absolutely! I don't think it's possible to “change your address“. Are you really suggesting another fracture of the Body of Christ? It certainly didn't help Christianity when Luther changed his address and a similar action won't fair any better today. Where should the Catholic heretic go? The Catholic Church has the Bread of Life and has a pretty good handle on a large part of the truth. You can’t go back to eating baby food after you’ve dined on meat and potatoes. No, the heretic belongs to the Body Christ although they may sometimes function as a certain orifice.
posted by: lpioch
March 11, 2008
8:20 am
Like I said before, it isn't the Church that asks them to go. It is the choice they have already made. I don't know where it is they want to go, but clearly they don't want to be here.
I don't suggest any more fractions and splits. We are to be one. But you also have to respect the freewill of those that on their own choose to leave. Is there such a thing as a "Catholic heretic"? Seems like a contradiction in terminology. an oxymoron.
For me, I rather they love the Church as the bride of Christ....as Christ loves her.
posted by: JosephMary
March 11, 2008
6:10 pm
Ave Maria!
Unfortunately most of the criticism against the Jesuits is founded. There are many dissidents in the ranks such that our Holy Father has had to ask them to return to faithfulness. If they do not, I hope he suppresses the order that is a danger to the faith in many cases. The last 'America' magazine I read was all promoting of gay priests.
Fr. McBrien? Bad news.
We have to use some discernment! I know it is hard. We do not want to criticize the holy priesthood but the men in holy orders are men and they have to deal with sin in their lives too. Certainly we know where the cover-ups of criminal sexual crimes has gotten us.
Are those who publicly profess heresy still Catholic? NO! Maybe in name but a heretic puts his own barriers up. Many are in a place of automatic excommunication (latae sententia) which although not publicly formal, is still, in essence, there. When someone proclaims heresy they are working for 'the other side'. I know one holy friar that calls them 'anonymous satanists'.
posted by: gabriel.gardner
March 11, 2008
6:31 pm
Noel, I mentioned the problem briefly and will restate it here again. The major problem with American Catholicism is that it is watered down with protestant infiltration. Futher, democracy has saturated the minds of American Catholic's to believe that all Catholic doctrine must be voted upon to become valid and that the majority rules. American Catholic's apply the same rules to Catholic theology and doctrine that they apply to American democracy which dumbs down the doctrine of the faith to the beliefs of the consensus. The protestant influence furthermore dumbs down the Catholic doctrine by presenting themselves equivalent to Catholic's which is widely accepted by Catholic's as well that there is no difference between Catholic and protestant doctrine.
The same problem occured in many other cultures where Catholic doctrine is slurred and obscured by some form of government which is held in greater esteem than religion. Americans are afraid to be Catholic as the faith requires behaviors that are considered Un-American and this is creating a nation of Catholic cowards. Hopefully someday the USA will be sufficiently evangelized by the Catholic church to the point where doctrinal educations is deemed more important than politics and democratic republics led by federalists. Does this make sense to you?
May the road rise to meet you, the wind be always at your back and the Lord hold you in the palm of his hand, until we meet again.
posted by: Winslow
March 11, 2008
7:36 pm
<<Where should the Catholic heretic go? The Catholic Church has the Bread of Life and has a pretty good handle on a large part of the truth.>>>
That'a true, Zach, but suppose you're dealing with a person who calls himself a Catholic, but doesn't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There are many such people in this country. It is irrelevant to such people that the Church has the Bread of Life. They think it's just bread. Most of these people do not believe they have an obligation to attend Sunday Mass. Do you call them Catholics?
By your criteria, any Southern Baptist can call himself a Catholic.
Peace
posted by: noelfitz
March 12, 2008
3:03 pm
Thanks to all who contributed to this discussion.
Z wrote:
But for starters, lpoich asks. "What about those that profess, openly and intentionally, heresy? Are they still Catholic?" My answer: absolutely! I don't think it's possible to “change your address“.
I agree with Z. Once a Catholic always a Catholic.
A good mother does not reject a child that goes astray; if anything she increases her love for the child. Our holy mother the Church also does not throw us out if we go wrong.
Baptism, confirmation and holy orders put a character or spiritual mark on the soul, which can never be erased. Thus the mark of being a Catholic is forever, just as Luther is a priest for all eternity, as we have already discussed.
I would also say there may be a Catholic heretic. However some time ago the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury referred to one of his flock as a heretic. This was considered absurd, since protestantism has individual interpretation.
Often those considered suspect have just been ahead of their time.
Fr Congar OP was suspect until John XXIII in the fifties recognised him. Incidentally I believe that when he became Pope, John XXIII found his name and that of a young schoalr called Ratzinger on a list of suspect theologians.
It is to be expected that they will be tension among theologians and pastoral bishops. This may be healthy.
Perhaps some of these suspect theologians are prophets for our time. It might be useful to look at their views carefully.
Recently I have been reading about Yves Congar, in particular a chapter about him by Fr Richard McBrien. It is thought provoking.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: lpioch
March 12, 2008
3:15 pm
Noel, let me try to restate my thoughts from a different direction. I quote you above:
-------------------------------------
But for starters, lpoich asks. "What about those that profess, openly and intentionally, heresy? Are they still Catholic?" My answer: absolutely! I don't think it's possible to “change your address“.
I agree with Z. Once a Catholic always a Catholic.
A good mother does not reject a child that goes astray; if anything she increases her love for the child. Our holy mother the Church also does not throw us out if we go wrong.
-------------------------------------
Ah. Very good analogy. That was (I hoped) my point. That it isn't the Church that throws them out. But they choose to leave.
A good mother does not reject a child that goes astray, but she also does not embrace the rejection and says "that's fine". No, she in love must correct - for the sake of the child's soul and also for the sake of the souls of her other children.
The Prodigal Son's Father does not go out in search for the son when he went astray. He accepted his child's freewill. He waited patiently, with love and prayer, for the son to return. The choice to "leave" is up to the individual with free will. It isn't the Church rejecting the heretic. It is the heretic rejecting the Church by the very fact of holding onto heresy.
Once Catholic always Catholic means that the prodigal son will always be welcomed back if sincerely repentant.
Once Catholic always Catholic does not mean that the son can be both at home and gone astray at the same time.
As I said before, we are all sinners. Sin does not make us not-Catholic. But we're not talking about sin. We're talking about the rejection of the Church's teachings. The rejection of the Bride of Christ as Christ loves her.
It isn't the Church that rejects the heretic.
It's the heretic that rejects the Church. Why hold on to the "title" then?
posted by: noelfitz
March 12, 2008
4:12 pm
Loretta
these are deep thoughts and I am a bit out of my depth.
I have been reading from Trent to Vatican II and it has affected me. I am thinking about this book and reading related material.
It seems to me many very influential theologians have been suspect, especially those with new insights.
St Josemaria Escriva met oppostition, yet his ideas, as well as those of others, became fundamental to Vat II. His idea of seeking holiness through our ordinary life is now accepted in the Church universally.
I think most of us are trained either in the humanities or the sciences. Those who have a scientific bent may feel more at home with the systematic precision of the neo-Thomists, while those with a more literary/arts background may fell more at ease with the post Vat II way of expressing Catholic belief, developed from La Nouvelle Theologie.
To some Vatican II may seem the worst disaster to hit the Church since the Reformation. In Ireland prior to Vat II churches were full and we had many vocations, now churches are empty and we have few vocations. Perhaps the change would have happened anyway.
To others Vat II heralded a renewal of the Church, led by tha Holy spirit. But have we been rowing back from the exciting times of John XXIII.
I am not writing about rejecting fundamental Catholic beliefs. I am considering attempts at new ways of looking at old truths.
"Really, truly and substantially" is the language of the hylomorphic theory of change (substantial form changes, matter remains the same), different from the atomic theory of change prevalent today.
Perhaps, when I learn more, I will be allowed develop my thoughts here.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: Zachaeus
March 12, 2008
11:07 pm
The term "heretic" is a pejorative label used by an opposing side to bully those who disagree with some aspect of Church teaching. These heretics most likely disagree either because they believe the teaching to be in error or they have not received the necessary inspiration/grace from the Holy Spirit to embrace the teaching. In our modern Catholic world, and certainly on CE Roundtable, we mellow the term "heretic" and substitute the term "Cafeteria Catholic". These children of God do not choose to leave the church they simply choose to be careful not to get food poisoning.
To dismiss the CC heretic too easily seems to demean/trivialize the real power of worshipping within the Catholic Church. It's as if there are no real benefits to Catholic worship other than salvation by strict adhesion to a plethora of teachings; as if that is all that really matters. The joy and fulfillment that is experienced by a practicing Catholic, regardless of rejection of certain easily questionable teachings, cannot be denied. Spiritual power is very real and it manifests itself in many forms and in a variety of different people from all walks of life as well as socio-economic background and intellectual competency.
As Noel so correctly eludes to: yesterday’s heretic may just be today’s Pope.
posted by: noelfitz
March 12, 2008
11:36 pm
Z
I agree and disagree with you.
You wrote:
The term "heretic" is a pejorative label used by an opposing side to bully those who disagree with some aspect of Church teaching.
If I accuae someone of being a heretic, it is because (s)he disagrees with some aspect of Church teaching, as I interpret it.
You also write about a plethora of teachings. In fact there are very few thingsa a Catholic must believe. The creeds are short.
Even the Apostles Creed has been changed. The Holy Ghost has been fired and replaced by the Holy Spirit, yet Anglicans still believe in the Holy Ghost, as well as the Holy Catholic Church.
Also Christ no longer descened into hell.
I agree with you people differ.
There were two people here in this roundtable whom I disagreed with in nearly everything they wrote, as you know. Yet we were all Catholics. There is huge freedom in the Church.
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Iolanthe, Gilbert & Sullivan.
Both liberals and conservatives can be Catholic.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: Winslow
March 13, 2008
9:51 am
<<It's as if there are no real benefits to Catholic worship other than salvation by strict adhesion to a plethora of teachings; as if that is all that really matters.>>>
Z, what you refer to above as 'teachings' include the teachings of Christ found in the Gospels. noel is right that the Creeds are short, but there is much in the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels not found in the Creeds. What comes to us as, in your words, "a plethora of teachings" is the message of the Holy Spirit given to the Church through Her bishops and the Vicar of Christ. Do you suggest we ignore them? Or that ignoring them is without consequences?
<<The joy and fulfillment that is experienced by a practicing Catholic, regardless of rejection of certain easily questionable teachings, cannot be denied.>>>
I'm not sure what you consider 'easily questionable teachings' but what I'm talking about are the fundamentals of the Faith without which one cannot legitimately call himself a Catholic. i.e., a Catholic is required to go to Mass on Sunday; a Catholic must believe Jesus is fully present in the Holy Eucharist; a Catholic must not procure an abortion or use contraceptives. Are these, to you, questionable teachings? Whatever 'joy and fulfillment' an alleged Catholic may find in rejecting the teachings of the Church has nothing to do with the teachings of the Church. Some people find joy and fulfillment in hating the Catholic Church. Are those the people you mean?
<<Spiritual power is very real and it manifests itself in many forms and in a variety of different people from all walks of life as well as socio-economic background and intellectual competency.>>>
That's true, but I'm not sure the statement has any practical meaning. Though its value is dubious, one can find 'spiritual power' in people rolling around in the dust of a revival tent.
Peace
posted by: lpioch
March 13, 2008
1:41 pm
Z,
When I use the term "heretic" it is not a pejorative label. It means one who expounds "heresy". Unless you think "heresy" is a pejorative noun.
Originally Noel spoke most specifically of the academics in the US. (hence the intellectual/anti-intellectual question) These are TEACHING positions in the name of the Church. There's no intent to belittle anyone by labeling the teachings as heresy. The intent is to protect the ignorant being taught incorrectly the Church's teachings.
If one "strictly adheres" to false teachings (i.e.. not to the "plethora" of Church teachings as you stated) out of ignorance, one can easily understand the mercy of God will not impute that upon them.
If one "strictly adheres" to false teachings out of stubbornness or pride, and then expounds these false teachings as Catholic teachings...that's another story.
posted by: AlvinaL
March 13, 2008
3:43 pm
Noel wrote: It seems to me many very influential theologians have been suspect, especially those with new insights.
Mother Teresa had a good response. She stated, “There are too many theologians. They should pick up a broom and sweep the floor.” (from Prayer for Beginners by Peter Kreeft)
Mother Teresa was suggesting rather than cause confusion in Church teaching, it would be far better if some theologians did manual labor in God’s vineyard.
I simply couldn't resist my two-cents worth today.
posted by: Protect the Rock
March 13, 2008
5:05 pm
The word "heresy" is not a pejorative to bully someone. It is a French term from the Greek hairesis meaning “choice” or from haireisthai “to choose” The underlying idea is of somebody’s choice of a way of thinking.
Is being confronted with one's own choice bullying?
posted by: Zachaeus
March 13, 2008
10:46 pm
I don't want to be a stickler for pettiness of words but the term I used was "heretic" not ""heresy". I think we can all agree that there is a significant difference between the two meanings. If you call me a heretic (not that anyone did) you are doing so with a pejorative intention. I readily agree that the term "heresy" is not pejorative in intent but rather descriptive in terms of a taught belief not in agreement with a traditional interpretation of Catholic teaching.
lpioch says "...those that openly disdain the authoritative teachings of the Church and teach contrary to the Church have already left the Church...", which would make them a heretic. Yes? Certainly the inference of the term is used in pejorative context, at least in my opinion.
Now to refocus on Noel's question about anti-intellectualism in the American Catholic Church. Firstly, I am Canadian Catholic, born and raised, multi-generations. I have never stepped foot on American soil so I can only imagine what is may be like to be Catholic in the American Catholic Church. That being said, I have had some lengthy exposure to what I consider to be some of the finest Catholic men and women I've ever encountered right here on Catholic Exchange. Most give the impression that they are American. Now I have also spent considerable time at "fisheaters.com" which is, again in my opinion, a harsh, even extreme example of the right wing ultra conservative, big "T" traditional church. Those people, (obviously who are not all Americans) believe with all their hearts that they are intellectual Catholics. They are not. They are fanatics, extremists, and screamers who have very little to say but choose to say it in a very loud way. They are rarely interested in intellectual dialog that even remotely questions traditional Tridentine Catholic teaching. The term "heretic" arises sometimes as often as periods at the end of sentences do. AND THAT IS AMONG THEMSELVES, their fellow traditionalists.
On Catholic Exchange the on-line environment is significantly better as evidenced by the wonderful posters that are found here (and you know that I know who you are
)
However, on the ohter hand, I have been shut down, on at least two occasions, by moderators who felt that I took the intellectual thing too far. I was asked to back off because I had waded into dangerous territory and that further discussion might put other posters faith at risk. That scared the “hell” out of me and I backed off. The dangerous place we reached, we reached together. I only wrote what seemed an obvious, logical conclusion.
Thus, if I were to answer Noel’s question based on my experience with the “American Catholic Church” found on-line, I would have to say, as respectfully and charitably as possible, that quite possibly most are anti-intellectual when it comes to a variety theological and faith based questions. They tow the party line (brilliantly mind you) but the party line non-the-less.
God bless you all!
posted by: bhokuto
March 14, 2008
3:30 pm
Wonderful Opener Ipioch,
But just as a reminder
What God is first In Recognition, or What He Is
John 4
24 God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.
The Soul of man must be regenerated in order to receive God, so that with the intellect we can visiualize and see God. God created Wisdom. The True Knowledge plus Understanding.
Wisdom is better than, is Best, than Tree of Knowledge, false knowledge which happens to include knowing Good and Evil, making man like unto God knowing good and evil. Adam and Eve already possessed God before they ate. They were already like God before they ate. They thought Hey lets go for it! We want to be More Like God! This of course would never happen. Man is not God and can never be God. The result being we are now Less than what we were originally and have a disease called sin and Satan invading mens lives. Open the wrong door and in comes flies. We were as the "angels" before they ate. Jesus referred to being like angels, Children are like angels He said, be like them He said.
In order to Adore Him(Father God) we must receive His Truth, which is Jesus, Jesus says, I am the Truth. Jesus says I lead to the Father through me you see the Father.
The Soul must be inhabited by God in order for God to be presented to our intellects, The Holy Spirit Reveals, Jesus to us through the means of His Word. Which are: Sacred Scripture, Eucharist,
from babes as spiritual beings to increase our spirits in the knowledge and understanding of Him.
Children are better able to see God because they are still innocent.
God is the Highest form of Knowledge or to Know. We were created to See God all day, every day. To be in Union with constantly. I think to know means to realize and equate, to comprehend without a doubt
to truly understand and experience. Whereas knowledge just simply put means to recognize something. God wants us to more than recognize Him but, to acknowledge Him. So to acknowledge Him we must Digest Him, feed on His Word. Tree of Life.
In Heaven Angels are constantly absorbing Gods Glory.
Man is not there yet. Only those who have gone on are in His Glory.
Revelations 22:1-2, 14. Without that union we fade and feel empty.
We have to return to that Innocent state if we want to See God with the eyes. Your mind, the intellect has to be cleared of false knowledge. Tree of Knowledge.
In places like Medjugorje were children see the Blessed Mother, Lourdes Blessed Mother; St. Fautina saw Jesus. Numbers of people seen Blessed Mother, Fatima they were Children. God never deviates from His Word. Truth is Truth.
Adam and Eve saw God with their Eyes and heard Him with their Ears
prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge. When they ate they had been
tansformed to being like God knowing good and evil, the recognition.
But because this was all new to them, Evil, they had not truly experienced Evil to say this is no good.
Reasoning: age of reasoning, and to be able to reason what is good and what is evil. To be able to discern with good eyes with the soul and with the intellect.
1 Corinthians 2
12 Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God.
Tree of Knowledge is always present in and among us, the Original sin
epic, what it left in man.
Spirit of this world: Satan and man without Truth.
Satan: seducer: Using Tree of Knowledge to lure people away from the Truth.
Romans 1
9 For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make a commemoration of you;
1 Peter 4
14 If you be reproached for the name of Christ, you shall be blessed: for that which is of the honour, glory, and power of God, and that which is his Spirit, resteth upon you.
1 John 4
2 By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God:
So to become Pure like God, we must do away with the Seducers Knowledge, which fogs the intellect first before conquering the heart.
That means resides in the Sacraments and sacramentals in the Church.
Peace
posted by: bhokuto
March 14, 2008
3:37 pm
Satan has his own Apostles and Disciples, which are those angels that followed him and men and women who are still seduced by the Tree of Knowledge.
Peace
posted by: bhokuto
March 14, 2008
4:22 pm
Proverbs: To know God is the beginning of Wisdom.
Wisdom 1
1 But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman:
2 But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world.
3 With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things.
10 But unhappy are they, and their hope is among the dead, who have called gods the works of the hand of men, gold and silver, the inventions of art, and the resemblances of beasts, or an unprofitable stone the work of an ancient hand.
Peace
posted by: Winslow
March 15, 2008
12:19 pm
Z: <<the term I used was "heretic" not ""heresy". I think we can all agree that there is a significant difference between the two meanings.>>>
I'm afraid we can't so agree. "Heretic" is derived from "heresy." One who professes ideas which are considered heresy is a heretic, as has been explained to you. If you agree 'heresy' is not pejorative, how can you possibly consider 'heretic' pejorative. It makes no sense.
<<lpioch says "...those that openly disdain the authoritative teachings of the Church and teach contrary to the Church have already left the Church...", which would make them a heretic. Yes? Certainly the inference of the term is used in pejorative context, at least in my opinion.>>>
In my opinion your opinion is mistaken. All Loretta is saying is, in words of one syllable, if the shoe fits, wear it. Lets parse it out. A person who calls himself a Catholic, but believes, and tries to convince others to believe the Eucharist is not the real body and blood of Jesus Christ, but is merely symbolic, is expounding an idea which is clearly heresy. Calling such a person a heretic is no different, comparitively, from calling a man who plays baseball for a living a professional baseball player. There's nothing at all pejorative about calling a ballplayer a ballplayer, an apple an apple or a heretic a heretic.
<<Now to refocus on Noel's question about anti-intellectualism in the American Catholic Church.>>>
There is no such thing as 'The American Catholic Church.' We are the Catholic Church in the USA.
<<I am Canadian Catholic, born and raised, multi-generations. I have never stepped foot on American soil so I can only imagine what is may be like to be Catholic in the American Catholic Church.>>>
That explains a lot. I'm interested to know what your imaginings are, especially where you italicized the word.
<<However, on the ohter hand, I have been shut down, on at least two occasions, by moderators who felt that I took the intellectual thing too far. I was asked to back off because I had waded into dangerous territory and that further discussion might put other posters faith at risk.>>>
Reading that, I can't help but believe something was lost in the translation. What does "the intellectual thing" mean? I find it hard to believe the moderators of this site would ever think anyone here couldn't handle themselves with you, or anyone who posted here, regarding Catholic doctrine and dogma. Specifically, and please don't take this as anything but an objective observation, I find your arguments weak and your ideas about the Catholic Church lacking a serious theological foundation.
<<I would have to say, as respectfully and charitably as possible, that quite possibly most are anti-intellectual when it comes to a variety theological and faith based questions.>>>
Again, I'd be grateful if you'd explain what you mean here. What does 'anti-intellectual' mean regarding 'theological and faith based questions?' The majority of the posters on this forum are very intelligent people who are happy to engage you in any idea you may wish to express. The only proviso is that you respond to what is written to you.
<<They tow the party line (brilliantly mind you) but the party line non-the-less.>>>
Actually, that almost answers the question. Almost. Do you consider the Catholic Church analogous to a political party, Z? Do you think adherence to and faith in the teachings of the Magisterium is a form of slavery? Do you believe Catholics have a right to deviate from those teachings?
And, BTW, speaking of anti-intellectual, it's "toe" the line.
Peace
posted by: noelfitz
March 17, 2008
12:06 pm
B
You wrote:
Proverbs: To know God is the beginning of Wisdom.
Could you please give me the reference?
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: Protect the Rock
March 17, 2008
1:56 pm
I think it is Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom."
posted by: noelfitz
March 17, 2008
2:26 pm
PTR,
In 30 translations I found for Prov 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.
These translations are based on the Hebrew Bible. Some translations were somewhat different.
Translations based on the Septuagint had:
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
or something close to this.
No where could I find:
Proverbs: To know God is the beginning of Wisdom.
I am afraid, in general, I disagree with everything B writes.
In Christian charity should I point this out, as B is misleading readers?
Essentially B considers flesh and knowledge are bad, I consider they are good.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: sainthenry
March 17, 2008
7:02 pm
Noel, I do not find that bhokuto is misleading anyone as I cannot find anyone who is following him. His interpretations require a great deal of consideration which appears to annoy some readers. In my opinion, he appears to require patience to understand and with effort, he is understandable. The Scriptures do state that we put to death the desires of the flesh in order to live in the Spirit. It is obvious that the Spirit is not comprised solely of intellect as Christ was not subjected to human existance by an act of intellect, rather an act of love. Christ baptizes the faithful in the Spirit according to the Gospel of Saint John. Nothing in Scripture describes baptism in the Intellect nor the Flesh as emanating from Christ.
May God Bless Us All!
posted by: noelfitz
March 17, 2008
7:51 pm
Sainthenry
thank you for your courteous, considered and helpful reply to me.
If it is considered that B does not mislead peope, in charity, I think it best for me not to reply to his posts, if this is not considered agreement with his views.
He claims there are things in scripture that I cannot find. Also we fundamentally disagree and for me to reply to his posts stating this would not be helpful and might be considered uncharitable.
Once again thank you for your sound advice.
It is great to hear from new contributors.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: sainthenry
March 18, 2008
1:41 pm
Noel, I think you are wise to decline correspondance with bhokuto. I have read his postings and found that he is strongly persistant. Unless you enjoy lengthy debate, it would seem that challenging him would prove to be a frustrating experience. For your own peace of mind, I think you would enjoy discussion from a more agreeable person. Thank you for the welcome. I do want to announce that my Bishop recently confirmed about 100 mentally retarded adults in the faith. The Bishop did not allow any of the candidates to pass examination without correct conscience and responses. This may be evidence that intellect does not necessarily fully comprise the Holy Spirit. I attended the Confirmation and was pleasantly surprised at the honesty and correctness of these mentally delayed Catholics.
May God Bless Us All!
posted by: noelfitz
March 18, 2008
2:31 pm
Saainthenry
Thank you for your encouraging reply.
I was pleased to hear the good news from your diocese.
There are many encouraging developments in the Church recently.
I consider we would be serving the Church better by being positive and supporting each other.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: sainthenry
March 18, 2008
5:12 pm
Noel, Your intellect concerning supporting each other while remaining positive is most excellent. You express my sentiments and the teaching of the Apostles as well that we be as one, which is what Christ prayed for. I see much disagreement here from many forum members which creates contention and some distress. I am hoping our consultation with each other will bring us both closer to each other and Christ. Peace and blessings to you Noel!
May God Bless Us All!