Any sense of true catholicity has to begin with some sense of how the Church has lived through history; too often we hear resounding statements that such and such is ‘tradition’, only to discover that in is a tradition in one part of the church which once was not so, has been changed, and will be changed again: one example of that we had in a recent discussion over the RC practice of priests washing feet on Maundy Thursday. Dave Smith, as ever a formidable and articulate defender of his Church, deplored Pope Francis opening this practice to women and non-Christians; this was seen as a deplorable departure from tradition. Yet, before 1955, this practice was not part of the Mass, and it was not known in the Western Church before the late twelfth century; so yes, it was a tradition, but not one of great antiquity, and one which had been subject to change before. The Christian tradition has been diverse, and one of the many good things about Anglicanism is that it is open to learning from other traditions – how can real catholicity be defined as a narrowing of the vision to what has been done in, for example, the Latin Church of the West, or the Church of england? Have we really nothing to learn from the Orthodox, the Lutherans, the Baptists or others? We can claim the ‘fullness of the faith’ inheres only in our tradition, but saying something, however often we say it, does not make it true.
The last fifty years have seen some astonishing confessional rapprochements between Anglicans, Lutherans and Roman Catholics, and whilst we seem often to hear from loud voices that this is a deplorable development marking syncretism, I do wonder how far those voices have silenced themselves for long enough to read the various reports? I was looking recently at Archbishop Robert Runcie’s address to the Synod in 1983 when he spoke of our debt to ‘the living Luther of today’, which began the road leading to the 1992 Meissen agreement by which my church and the evangelical Church in Germany acknowledged that there were no serious obstacles to full communion with each other. IN 1996 the Porvoo Agreements with the Baltic and Nordic Lutheran Churches provided for full communion, and this was followed in 2000 by the Reuilly agreements with the French Lutheran and and Reformed Churches.
At the same time, via the ARCIC (Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission) process, relations between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church improved. Lutheran and Roman Catholic relations have also improved. In September the Pope will travel to Lund in Sweden to take part in a celebration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation; as I type these words I feel angry fingers typing on keyboards; perhaps I am wrong, and perhaps many of our RC commentators here will support their Pope – but I think not. The idea that Luther contributed nothing of value to the Christian tradition is held, I think, mainly by those who have never read him, and the same is true of Calvin. It is interesting to note that the best theologian ever to occupy the throne of St Peter, Benedict XVI, was not so dismissive – but then he had read Luther in the German. To those who spoke lightly of syncretism and wanted to refight old battles, Pope Benedict had wise words which ought to be heeded:
I would respond by saying that the first and most important thing for ecumenism is that we keep in view just how much we have in common, not losing sight of it amid the pressure towards secularization – everything that makes us Christian in the first place and continues to be our gift and our task. It was the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided us and we failed to grasp existentially what we have in common in terms of the great deposit of sacred Scripture and the early Christian creeds. The great ecumenical step forward of recent decades is that we have become aware of all this common ground and that we acknowledge it as we pray and sing together, as we make our joint commitment to the Christian ethos in our dealings with the world, as we bear common witness to the God of Jesus Christ in this world as our undying foundation.
It is hard to know what the point is in being partisan about the reformation, all sides have a mixed history in the longer perspective of history – and it is not as though the Western paradigm actually encompasses the whole of Christendom. It means little to the great Orthodox Churches of the world, or to other ancient churches. The notion that we have nothing to learn from others is not, I think, often held by those with a wide knowledge of the global history of Christianity. One of the advantages of Anglicanism is that it has become a global communion without insisting that one model is the best one.
A real catholicity is hard to reach, but it is even harder if we know little about or despise other traditions. We are all children of God, we all celebrate (or will soon celebrate, for the Orthodox) Easter (or the Pasch), and if we occasionally stop insisting on hearing only our own voice, we may even find we learn something. If Benedict XVI thought we had something to learn from Luther, perhaps we should listen? I sadly noted that on a certain self-styled traditionalist site, many commentators thought that traditionalist Catholics such reject Benedict’s words. It must be wonderful (irony klaxon alert) to be so clever and learned and holy that one can reject Benedict XVI’s words so lightly. I am glad I am neither that clever, learned or holy. I have learnt a lot from him, as I am from reading Luther. I rejoice in having access to such minds. I am not sure I am ready to take on Calvin, but he’s next.
Philip Augustine said:
I would like to comment in regards to Pope Francis and his changing of practices.
I’ve thought long and hard about the washing of the feet. I remember reading in a discussion between NEO and Geoff, I believe, that they are right that the next great Christian revival will come from Muslims. In many ways, I agree with this statement. They have already opened their hearts to the faith, their well, as St. Teresa of Avila would describe, has water flowing through it, unlike the dryness of atheism in the west.
Muslims must come to the conclusion, through Grace, that Mohammad is dead and Christ lives.
How? The answer is found in my last comment that quoted scripture, “20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Gal. 2:20 RSV
Speaking in regards to Pope Francis, several posts back, on my blog, I posted a video from the movie, “Brother Sun, Sister Moon” when St. Francis meets the Pope, the Pope replies, ““We are entrusted with riches and power, you in your poverty–put us to shame.”–a deep sentiment. Now, if we focus on the present, when Pope Francis washed the feet of Muslims, it was reported that they wept.
Why did they weep? Pope Francis, the vicar of Christ, perhaps a Muslim would see as the greatest Christian leader in the world, showed the love of Christ. How are these actions different than Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan or in John Chapter 4 with Jesus and the woman from Samaria?
Let’s focus on several parts:
“9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samar′ia?” For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. 10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”
The Muslim may ask, Pope Francis, the vicar of Christ, why do you wash my feet? I wouldn’t know what the Pope would say, but I know he could speak of the living water of Christ.
Perhaps, after the experience, the Muslim would go run back in town and say, “Come see the man who showed me the Christ.”
LikeLiked by 6 people
JessicaHof said:
I can’t see it doing any harm – except to the blood pressure of a few traditionalists 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Yes, yes, so you say. Change the tune – it’s boring, and clearly not going to happen.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
No thread is intended to be started by this entry as I must ponder if I am doing any good here or not. So this is just a simple 1 off observation to be made before I am once again accused of being the most horrible type of Catholic; a dogmatist (which means, I guess) someone who believes dogma is important.
+++
Dissenters of the pope, the hierarchy and the teachings of the Church are celebrated if it was done during the Reformation. They are the good guys. But those who defend orthodoxy today (as the Church did at Trent) are considered the Traddies, Rad-trads, Fundamentalists and Dogmatists; i.e. the bad guys. The only good dissenter is the one who demands novel changes approved of by the court of public opinion; destruction of the sacraments, the priesthood, creating a new canon of scripture etc. Of course, defending tradition against novelty is always an evil of our day. It is very unkind and hurtful.
Seems the “fortress mentality” of Fr. Dwight’s fundamentalists, would not not now pertain to Luther or Calvin but would (by today’s standards) been pinned on the hierarchy of the Church at that time, just as it is popularly applied to the defenders of tradition in our days. For Luther and Calvin, being ‘more Catholic than the Pope’ (or the Church) was OK because now it fits the new narrative. But Lo to those who find the novelties of Kasper (Calvin?) and Pope Francis (Luther?) distressing to the point of actually saying so in a voice loud enough to be heard, “Oh for shame!” If orthodox traditional Catholics would just get with the program of stripping out everything but the Nicene Creed all would be well. Or perhaps if they leave like Luther and Calvin they will be seen as great theologians and in 500 years the Pope will celebrate their contributions to the Church as well.
LikeLiked by 5 people
NEO said:
I think for most of us when we use the term dogmatist, we mean one who puts dogma above the Christ, and him Crucified. If that includes you, is for you to decide. We don’t know your heart, only what you write.
It would do you little harm to read Luther, and perhaps Calvin, although I find Calvin hard going. What you will find is orthodoxy, more orthodox than Rome at the time. And the, well, not proof, exactly, of that is that starting with Trent Rome has moved towards Luther, not away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Although, Neo, I would state that reading Luther and Calvin could prove to be harmful without an equal grasp of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. As I would certainly argue, that Luther and Calvin’s biases do manipulate those foundations.
LikeLiked by 4 people
NEO said:
That is certainly true, and I suppose I assumed that Dave has read them. I shouldn’t assume things, though. Yes, they do, and so it always is, even with us. Don’t think we’re going to cure that!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Philip Augustine said:
I thought you were speaking in regards to general readership, not specifically to Dave. I am sure he has read them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Both, actually. And yes, I’m pretty sure he has as well. He’s as good an apologist as I know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I think we have a lot of modern interpreters, not least B16 who have done a better job than I could do 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
My friend, how should I explain my thoughts, I too worry about the moral decay of the world and the Church. I too worry about Cardinal Kasper’s influence. However, we must trust in the Holy Spirit to guide Pope Francis. I ask, perhaps, as I reserve judgment on Pope Francis, because of my faith in the spirit, is there any end result of the actions of Francis that would change your mind? Perhaps, if he leads to a great conversion to the faith from Islam or perhaps a reinstatement of Lutheranism into communion with the Church of Rome (albeit a long shot)?
In my mind, the Church is still trying to fill the void left by Pope St. John Paul II. An actor whose energy could inspire, but as a professor of philosophy whose mind was just as sharp as his energy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
I think your point on Pope St. John Paul II to be very valid, likely for us all. Full communion, I think very unlikely, but I note that both Liberal and Conservative synods of the Lutheran church are making close contacts with the respective parts of the Roman church, and much of that is due to Rome’s outreach.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Me, I do that silly fundie thing – I trust in the Holy Spirit – he manages despite our worst efforts 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
Probably the most profound comment in the stream, dearest friend 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
Dave, I am the least qualified to come to your defense but think I will at least state the following. Your contributions here are filled with a heart for Christ and a profound love of the RC Church and her teachings. I don’t understand what all the kerfuffle is about. I am not aware of you ever calling others here heretics or proclaiming that you have inside knowledge of their fate for all eternity. It is my sense that people get tired of hearing about dogma in which they do not agree, and somehow you are being vilified for adhering to it.
For me, we are all lovers of Christ here and I am sorry to see words such as “your church says” over and over again. We are all church in my book, all with our flaws and gifts. We all get our noses out of joint now and then, which is what I think is behind the finger pointing at you and “your church.” My apologies to those I might offend by saying so and I will now butt out.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Dave Smith said:
Thank you, Grandpa.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I’d surely echo that too. Nothing I say should ever be taken as detracting from the immense respect I have for you, dear friend.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Thank you Jess.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I have learnt and continue to learn, a lot from you, and sometimes it doesn’t quite come out as I’d like it when I commenting in a hurry.
It’s been a bit of a stressful time this last couple of months, but with a new job ad new home in a new city, I’m hoping the corner has been turned 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I’m glad that you have found a new job. All the best in your new journey. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Thank you dear friend. A nice turn of events – at last 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Good. I hope it turns out to be as good as you envision it. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
It’s got to be better than a month or so so ago where in the course of a day I lost my job and my home and the prospects of a new job with a home 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Stressful to say the least. Well, I am glad that episode has now come to an end. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Me too – homeless or jobless I could cope with for a while, the two together was a bit of a strain – but good friends helped, and now – DV – things are in a better place. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Do you have much to move?
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
As it happens, for various odd reasons, not a great deal other than books and some clothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Should be an easy move then unless your new abode is unfurnished.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
No, thank goodness, it’s furnished or I’d be sitting on a box 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I’ve been reduced to sleeping on a park bench in my 20’s so sitting on a box in my own place would have been a luxury. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
There was a point when I thought it might come to that – but I don’t think young ladies would be safe on park benches, so was glad to get the new job and home 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Agreed!
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Fortunately I knew I could rely on a good friend if all else failed. Very exciting to be living in a big city – miss my garden though 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
That’s how I survived as well. Thank God for friends who put me up until I could find an apartment of my own. My parkbench living was only a few days at most . . . might have been only one night even. But it seemed a lot longer. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I can imagine that – scary stuff 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I really can’t see why it has to be good/guy bad guy. If a man as intelligent and holy as Benedict XVI, or St John Paul II could see that there are good things as well as bad things in all our heritages, why is it so hard for others? Did you read the link to B16?
Where I have called you or others ‘bad guys’? That’s your hermeneutic, not mine, not mine at all.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
I would also note that Pope Benedict in the second volume of his Jesus of Nazareth quotes German Lutheran Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) at great length on page, 93.
Pope Benedict quoting John 17:22-23 RSV:
“22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.”
He goes on to say, “No discourse on ecumenism ever lacks a reference to this “testament” of Jesus–to the fact that before he went to the Cross, he pleaded with the Father for the unity of his future disciples, for the Church of all times. And so it should be…
“For what unity was Jesus praying?…It IS instructive to hear Rudolf Bultmann once again on this question…”this unity is grounded in the unity of Father and Son, and then he continues: “That means it is not founded on natural or purely historical data, nor can it be manufactured by organization, institutions or dogma; these can at best only bear witness to the real unity.
“the actual disunion of the Church, which is, in passing, precisely the result of its institutions and dogmas, does not necessarily frustrate the unity of the proclamation…because the authenticity of the proclamation cannot be controlled by institutions and dogmas.”
Pope Benedict would both state that these statements were astonishing and true because true Christian is simple, it’s faith. (p. 93-97 if you care to read his words)
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Yes, I remember reading that – I do wish some of B16’s admirers here would read more of his work – nothing I write here is out of line withit.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Everyone’s a modernist – there’s only you and couple of others true to the Catholic faith. Are there as many as 12 of you? If so, which one’s Judas?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Quiav the Great is the only real catholic in here.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Have you ever tried reading Bultmann?
I suppose it’s OK if you’re prepared to take the view that John’s gospel was heavily edited by a committee and each half sentence comes from a different source.
The approach of JAT Robinson (his ‘Priority of John’) seems much more satisfactory.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Jock, I’m only familiar with his views from my wife, not his writings other than what has been quoted by Pope Benedict XVI. Of course, Benedict only quotes what he agrees with in this regard.
I’ll take a look into it, thanks for the reference.
LikeLike
No Man's Land said:
I don’t care for Bultmann all that much, primarily because how he writes about revelation is confused, but I do find something attractive about the idea that the unity of the Church is intimately connected with the unity of the Trinity. And, consequently, the unity of the Church can never be a purely historical or institutional matter.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
And Christ prayed with Samaritans, sinners and Pagans… It would seem those Popes are acting from Christ’s example.
So, tell me, Q. Why should I trust your judgment over Joseph Ratzinger or Karol Wojtyla’s?
I think I’ll trust them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
famphillipsfrancis said:
I had thought that John Paul II had prayed “alongside” those of other religions. That is not quite the same as praying “with”.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
Well said Francis 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
At what point did you decide that what the eyes of the world see and think mattered? A new departure for you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
I trust that God has acted accordingly through the Holy Spirit within his Church as the “the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
You seem to forget that the 16th century is not year 1 in the history of the Church.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
You assert theses Popes practicing the rites of pagans, now you must cite these incidents or they another more than unsubstantiated claims.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
These are from Lebrevian Sedevacantists sites, with reporting on the events with their heretical bias. Am I to understand these are allies of yours? Are you a Roman Catholic?
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Again, please cite the incident and clarify prayed in ‘common’. I would say refrain from the legalist speak.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
I suppose I just don’t understand the point of authority you speak from, He should have known better? Of course, you could say God–but I am sure the Holy Spirit is more active in the walls of the Vatican than the walls of your home–wouldn’t you say?
The man is arguably the greatest Catholic theologian of the 20th century.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Unlike me and you, he is cleverer, holier and wiser than the greatest theologian ever to occupy the throne of St Peter – I stand in awe – and must move out of the way of the swelling head.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Philip Augustine said:
Haha! I literally laughed out loud!
I mean, I really don’t get it. I don’t understand how one can say these things and stand in opposition to such a great mind in the Catholic Church. It’s Pope Benedict XVI–Joseph Ratzinger!!! It’s not Cardinal Kasper or Pope Francis. He’s a conservative voice within the Church and he’s still not good enough….
I mean, come on.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
In other words, he’s doing a Bosco, judging by pictures and appearances. No evidence, but hey, call a saint out on a picture, why not, it’s what a traditionalist Catholic would do – really?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Bosco the Great said:
You rang?
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Are you saying St John Paul II erred and you don’t – amazed, not, no I’m not at all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
I’m happy with what the blessed saint did, so are most Catholics – it is for the narrow-minded to explain what they mean – assuming they are capable of it.
Any way, I am out now to celebrate a new job in a new city working for the Scottish Episcopalian Church – night all! 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
No Man's Land said:
I don’t think you are appreciating how religiously significant it was for Jesus to eat, pray, and associate with sinners within the context of the Jewish religion. Indeed associating with sinners, at least outside of business activities, was expressly forbidden by Jewish pious practice. Hence, the legitimate outrage of the Pharisees. I think we need to remember that the Pharisees were the guardians of the Law, and so within that context, their criticisms of Jesus were not only sanctioned by that Law, but their criticisms of Jesus’ actions were also the traditional understanding that pious Jews took towards sinners and Gentiles for generations.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
That’s a really important point – I hope QV grasps it.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Have you actually read any of B16’s works on this subject? If so, read them again and try to understand rather than impose your crude thinking on his brilliant and Spirit inspired intellect.
Where have I, or he, or anyone but you, said we don’t also concentrate on what divides us. The difference is you do nothing else and never mention any of the things which unite us. So be it, you narrow your mind and dwell in a cave in the ground – no one really cares.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Seems he never learned that old adage, “It’s better to be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and prove it.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Well, You’ve yet to support your point, as Philip asked you to, so there’s nothing to disprove other than your assertions, which are, prima facie, foolish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Pope Benedict XVI has immense treatises that should change your mind, so I’m not convinced you’d change your mind of anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Funny everyone else can. It’s what happens when you set yourself up in opposition to one of the best theologians of the last hundred years, Benedict. If you don’t, cite your authorities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
I expect that is all it is. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
My point ought to be quite clear, if it isn’t read until it is. If you insist on seeing things through blinkers, that might be why you see only what the blinkers allow. You put the blinkers on, you could always do the opposite.
LikeLike
Eccles (@BruvverEccles) said:
My problem, as a humble idiot, is that I look at all the ruined abbeys, I read of the destruction of 90% of our religious art, and, worse than any of these, I read about the martyrs (Protestant and Catholic) and I find it very hard to say “Well done, chaps!”
LikeLiked by 3 people
NEO said:
Certainly can’t disagree with you there, Bruvver. I think that is Jessica’s point as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Me too, and I’m certainly not saying either side here was in the right – and it is very hard to do anything with this painful history but try to learn better ways of being in the world with those with whom we disagree.
LikeLike
No Man's Land said:
I find it amusing when modernists, pejoratively, call other modernists modernists. I guess it only serves to show how far the West really is from a patristic and medieval hermeneutic, theology, and spirituality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
it has its amusing apect.
LikeLike
No Man's Land said:
Particularly exegetically. How the West reads Scripture, at least generally, is very modern, even amongst those who think they are anti-modernists. And by that I mean that one of the primary components of modernism is that the whole meaning of a text or the brewing of coffee or of anything rests in what we can know about it literally i.e., historically or scientifically. To put it in terms of Aristotelian causality, everything is material and efficient in the West, nothing is final or formal anymore.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
This is a fascinating question for me, at least.
Unless we think there is some point at which the Holy Spirit got tired of using the minds created by God to glorify him and to praise him – and yes, to comprehend him better – some form of development is surely inevitable?
In that sense, don’t we risk falling into the error of those who argued long ago that Hellenistic thinking had somehow corrupted the purity of the Gospel message – forgetting as such men did that that message had been spread in a world saturated with Hellenistic thought?
Do we risk arguing for some sort of Christianity which never really existed?
I’ll stop there, I may have stopped making sense a paragraph ago – but if this is at all interesting – and sensible – I’d like to discuss more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Man's Land said:
As an Orthodox, outside the 7 ecumenical councils, the licit range of theological opinion is pretty wide, so I think there is a great deal of room for development and theological creativity and of seeing things anew within Tradition and the Church. (And, of course, there is also a matter of what the councils really said).
But, imo, modernism sets itself up in opposition to Christianity, its values are the rejection of, the flight from, Christian values. Take a look at the West with its late modern consumerist culture, truly consumerist, in Adorno’s terms, its nationalism, colonialism, Western supremacism, capitalism, etc. For instance, nature is no longer theophany as in the patristic and medieval age, but a machine to be taken apart and studied or a commodity to be exploited. And so are human beings. We’ve got to put nature on the rack, as Bacon had it. Or the fact that late modern society is obsessed with fabricating and gratifying desire and removing impediments that block the gratification of desire. To me, such a society is already, at least implicitly, unChristian. Because in such a society there are no final values only price tags and pleasures.
And I am not trying to idealize this. Some cultures get things right that other cultures get wrong and vice versa. I mean Aquinas advocated the killing of heretics to save souls. So there’s no reason to idealize this. But I think we have to recognize that every ideology opens up its own special space of possibilities, and the late modern project is, not only historically confused and metaphysically impoverished and logically incoherent, but its possibilities are frightening. I think this is kind of what Heidegger was talking about.
And, yes, belief in the Holy Spirit is essential, not only does Scripture have to be inspired, but we as readers have to be inspired as well, at least that is the patristic view, which is why it is so important that we don’t lose that guiding criterion of scriptural exegesis–I think the modernist hermeneutic downgrades the HS.
Yes, I can talk about this stuff forever.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
I’m going to put some thoughts into a post and see if I make any sense – probably waffle, but anything good in it will come from what you’ve said – even though you might feel the need to wonder how anyone could get to where I may get 😦 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: We’re all modernists in the West? | All Along the Watchtower