What we seek is Truth. Never the light of Thruth is more intense then at the crossroads of revelation and reality. The reality we can more easly understand is material and science does that. Theology studies revelation and aims to get from the true to the more true.
If you miss the crossroads you stray, but at the same time you need the duality or you have nothing. The debat is : is theology missing the crossroads or disregarding it's identity? This is a paradox which mere humans can not hold in equilibrium, BUT which thousands of devoted and disagreeing minds can bare beautiful fruits through.
I personally thought JD got on one side of the paradox- which is not helpful as an analyst- and then did somewhat of a straw-man. It did seem you had a good time doing the episodes thought so cheers to that !
haha I wouldn't expect you to to change your perspective on account of me, but I did try to give honest feedback. By the way I am particularly thankful for your accountability journalism in the church: I pray my country gets more of that from conservatives too . Also english is not my mother tongue.
I didn't find you particularly fair in the analysis of the "paradigm shift" and the consequences it could bring. You can't say that this theology just wants to: not focus on revelation and gut theology of what it is, without also signifying what the opposite excess is and how dangerous it also is (that is what the document signified no? and you kind of brush it off: desk theology was it?).
Then the accusation that these theologians just want to put man in the center and not God, to me, was a straw man. I'm sure the pope and the new prefect of the CDF see some excesses in a too conservative theology that are fair . I wouldn't know if how they go about is any good.
Of course when man becomes his own God (some will do that) we have seen the consequences... That doesn't mean this is always the case and that their own critics dont't have value: I felt you where suggesting that.
I would add that when one wants to venerate the authentic magisterium, and also get rid of chaff teachings (chaff is what is mixed tho the wheat in english right?) that are held by leaders (not knowing necessarily in advance what they are), one must be ready to have theology be confronted by science (as ambassador to reality) so that bad theology is broken against reality and revelation becomes better understood. Evidently that is easy to say but I do feel our time is crying for this... in any case to try is risky, and you clearly explained how theology can actually gut itself of theology for instance.
I don't know how to say it better than: these crossroads between understanding reality and revelation are tricky but vital, only there will our understanding of what we can know as true grow. Revelation is final, the Church teaches, but we are far from having understood it completely.
In medio stat virtus except for charity right? So not criticizing "desk theology" and pointing out only the other side's worst possible consequences seems unfair . Wisdom, to me ,would be to state both sides' problems ,or both the upside and upside of a position, so it would help people navigate the middle. That is, not the lukewarm middle, rather the middle that needs nuance courage ect.
I feel like you usually are more fair and today you guys sounded more like "typical conservatives" and it was less interesting.That is to me.
I tried to be short, hope you understood what I meant. Tip my hat to you!
> one must be ready to have theology be confronted by science (as ambassador to reality) so that bad theology is broken against reality and revelation becomes better understood.
Yes, but what is the *specific* science that theology must be confronted by? It is the science of the cross, most likely, if I can borrow the title of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein's) book. I am a child of my times, and therefore a relentless pragmatist: to have a theory is a fine thing but to have a theory and not test it out is a little bit sad, like cherry trees that blossom without setting any fruit (in the case of theology it is more than a little bit sad, because the only tragedy is not to become a saint, and the way in which a pragmatist would test a proposition in theology would be to see "does this, on average, help people to become saints": knowing God, we desire to love Him more; loving Him, we desire to know Him more, etc.; theology ought to contribute to this upward spiral or what is it even for.)
I think you are right theology seeks to know truth about God, to bring people to Him, missing the last objectif guts theology too. Seems that is the complementary point to mine.
So as examples that come to mind would be science discovering that the first chapters of Genisis are not exact historical accounts witch makes theologians have to look deeper; I feel that the teachings I have heard since youth, on these chapters, have deepened greatly as a consequence.
An other would be pastoral. Science made great leaps on mental health and as a consequence theology has deepened it's understanding of depression or suicide for example. This gave a "new paradigm" to better lead people to God . Side note, I hope there will be a canonised "mental health saint " one day.
One for the decades to come would be scientifique understanding of homosexuality, witch seems unsuccessful, as far as I know. And so for now scientifique results seem ideological and conflicting. When this point in reality is better understood ,then theology can use that to understand revelation better, still better see God's face, still better bring people to him.
I’m one of those beige-area lukewarm Catholics: please pray for me.
It was great to hear about how each of you enjoyed Halloween with your families; that was a great conversation.
The discussion around His Eminence’s comments was fair. Unfortunately, it’s evidence of a startling disconnect. Do Nuncio’s have pastoral experience? Or are they more like diplomats?
What we seek is Truth. Never the light of Thruth is more intense then at the crossroads of revelation and reality. The reality we can more easly understand is material and science does that. Theology studies revelation and aims to get from the true to the more true.
If you miss the crossroads you stray, but at the same time you need the duality or you have nothing. The debat is : is theology missing the crossroads or disregarding it's identity? This is a paradox which mere humans can not hold in equilibrium, BUT which thousands of devoted and disagreeing minds can bare beautiful fruits through.
I personally thought JD got on one side of the paradox- which is not helpful as an analyst- and then did somewhat of a straw-man. It did seem you had a good time doing the episodes thought so cheers to that !
Can you elaborate? I'm glad to adapt my perspective, but you'll have to give me a bit more of what you mean.
haha I wouldn't expect you to to change your perspective on account of me, but I did try to give honest feedback. By the way I am particularly thankful for your accountability journalism in the church: I pray my country gets more of that from conservatives too . Also english is not my mother tongue.
I didn't find you particularly fair in the analysis of the "paradigm shift" and the consequences it could bring. You can't say that this theology just wants to: not focus on revelation and gut theology of what it is, without also signifying what the opposite excess is and how dangerous it also is (that is what the document signified no? and you kind of brush it off: desk theology was it?).
Then the accusation that these theologians just want to put man in the center and not God, to me, was a straw man. I'm sure the pope and the new prefect of the CDF see some excesses in a too conservative theology that are fair . I wouldn't know if how they go about is any good.
Of course when man becomes his own God (some will do that) we have seen the consequences... That doesn't mean this is always the case and that their own critics dont't have value: I felt you where suggesting that.
I would add that when one wants to venerate the authentic magisterium, and also get rid of chaff teachings (chaff is what is mixed tho the wheat in english right?) that are held by leaders (not knowing necessarily in advance what they are), one must be ready to have theology be confronted by science (as ambassador to reality) so that bad theology is broken against reality and revelation becomes better understood. Evidently that is easy to say but I do feel our time is crying for this... in any case to try is risky, and you clearly explained how theology can actually gut itself of theology for instance.
I don't know how to say it better than: these crossroads between understanding reality and revelation are tricky but vital, only there will our understanding of what we can know as true grow. Revelation is final, the Church teaches, but we are far from having understood it completely.
In medio stat virtus except for charity right? So not criticizing "desk theology" and pointing out only the other side's worst possible consequences seems unfair . Wisdom, to me ,would be to state both sides' problems ,or both the upside and upside of a position, so it would help people navigate the middle. That is, not the lukewarm middle, rather the middle that needs nuance courage ect.
I feel like you usually are more fair and today you guys sounded more like "typical conservatives" and it was less interesting.That is to me.
I tried to be short, hope you understood what I meant. Tip my hat to you!
> one must be ready to have theology be confronted by science (as ambassador to reality) so that bad theology is broken against reality and revelation becomes better understood.
Yes, but what is the *specific* science that theology must be confronted by? It is the science of the cross, most likely, if I can borrow the title of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein's) book. I am a child of my times, and therefore a relentless pragmatist: to have a theory is a fine thing but to have a theory and not test it out is a little bit sad, like cherry trees that blossom without setting any fruit (in the case of theology it is more than a little bit sad, because the only tragedy is not to become a saint, and the way in which a pragmatist would test a proposition in theology would be to see "does this, on average, help people to become saints": knowing God, we desire to love Him more; loving Him, we desire to know Him more, etc.; theology ought to contribute to this upward spiral or what is it even for.)
I think you are right theology seeks to know truth about God, to bring people to Him, missing the last objectif guts theology too. Seems that is the complementary point to mine.
So as examples that come to mind would be science discovering that the first chapters of Genisis are not exact historical accounts witch makes theologians have to look deeper; I feel that the teachings I have heard since youth, on these chapters, have deepened greatly as a consequence.
An other would be pastoral. Science made great leaps on mental health and as a consequence theology has deepened it's understanding of depression or suicide for example. This gave a "new paradigm" to better lead people to God . Side note, I hope there will be a canonised "mental health saint " one day.
One for the decades to come would be scientifique understanding of homosexuality, witch seems unsuccessful, as far as I know. And so for now scientifique results seem ideological and conflicting. When this point in reality is better understood ,then theology can use that to understand revelation better, still better see God's face, still better bring people to him.
Thank you. It was fun looking at in depth.
https://creyna.substack.com/p/the-pillar-on-pierre
The dueling bishops up next…to be cont….
I’m one of those beige-area lukewarm Catholics: please pray for me.
It was great to hear about how each of you enjoyed Halloween with your families; that was a great conversation.
The discussion around His Eminence’s comments was fair. Unfortunately, it’s evidence of a startling disconnect. Do Nuncio’s have pastoral experience? Or are they more like diplomats?
How does one reach out to JD about "MC-ing" an event? Unfortunately, tracking y'all down at Todd Conner's isn't in the cards for me this year.
jdflynn AT pillarcatholic DOT com
Thank you
-biasedreporter777@gmail.com
please email me because I tried that and it iddn't work.
Yes. I just edited my email address above and sent you an email.