I've reached that stage in my blog cycle which seems as inevitable as any economic cycle, where I've decided not to be involved in polemics and accusations.
I just had a conversation with my father that ended us in agreeing that one of us is going to Hell (barring God's mercy). I'm tired of it, I'm much more comfortable saying "fine if God is not merciful I will go to Hell" (that has been the truth of the matter since the beginning).
Really I just want to post thoughts about my growth/catechesis into Catholic philosophy/theology. I like Thomism, and now I know that every Catholic claims to be a Thomist, I can happily reconcile my appreciation for the Jesuits with the Angelic Doctor.
I ordered a book called "The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy" by Etienne Gilson today and I'm excited about it. Hopefully it will continue this process. But I really just want to have a charitable theology. As Hans Urs Von Balthasar said "love alone is credible" and I want to love Jesus, and love the truth. the end.
Showing posts with label Etienne Gilson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Etienne Gilson. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Orthodox Catholic Theologians: Do They Exist?
-Karl Rahner (SJ) has been called a post-modern modalist.
-Hans Urs Von Balthasar (SJ) has been accused of teaching Penal Substitution and universalism.
-Henri de Lubac (SJ) was forbidden to teach or publish theology for 9 years by the Jesuits because of a controversial work.
-Yves Congar (OP) was removed from teaching or publishing for a while because of his ecumenism and promotion of openness to some Protestant ideas.
All of those men were given the chance to become Cardinals (the 2nd highest office in Catholicism) and some of them took it. They have been called some of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians in the 20th century. And yet at the same time they are charged with heresy.
At first this scared and troubled me and I didn't want to read them. But then I realized this is ridiculous, these men are heroes of the faith and people are mindlessly slandering them, even Protestants read them for their brilliance (the Anglicans especially).
There are a few Orthodox Catholic theologians who as far as I've heard are completely legit, but probably more boring:
Pope Benedict XVI (obviously - he was the head of our Inquisit-I mean congregation of faith, and our Pope)
Etienne Gilson
Jacques Maritain
Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft are both questioned greatly about their orthodoxy, but probably because they explain things from a Protestant framework (and possibly because Kreeft *kind of* teaches Protestant Soteriology a bit...sometimes)
What I really want to understand is Catholic soteriology, but the problem seems to be that as soon as a Catholic theologian claims something significant happened in the crucifixion he's accused of penal substitution and Protestantism.
-Hans Urs Von Balthasar (SJ) has been accused of teaching Penal Substitution and universalism.
-Henri de Lubac (SJ) was forbidden to teach or publish theology for 9 years by the Jesuits because of a controversial work.
-Yves Congar (OP) was removed from teaching or publishing for a while because of his ecumenism and promotion of openness to some Protestant ideas.
All of those men were given the chance to become Cardinals (the 2nd highest office in Catholicism) and some of them took it. They have been called some of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians in the 20th century. And yet at the same time they are charged with heresy.
At first this scared and troubled me and I didn't want to read them. But then I realized this is ridiculous, these men are heroes of the faith and people are mindlessly slandering them, even Protestants read them for their brilliance (the Anglicans especially).
There are a few Orthodox Catholic theologians who as far as I've heard are completely legit, but probably more boring:
Pope Benedict XVI (obviously - he was the head of our Inquisit-I mean congregation of faith, and our Pope)
Etienne Gilson
Jacques Maritain
Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft are both questioned greatly about their orthodoxy, but probably because they explain things from a Protestant framework (and possibly because Kreeft *kind of* teaches Protestant Soteriology a bit...sometimes)
What I really want to understand is Catholic soteriology, but the problem seems to be that as soon as a Catholic theologian claims something significant happened in the crucifixion he's accused of penal substitution and Protestantism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)