tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post3457298427126313773..comments2023-08-19T23:23:19.849+10:00Comments on Sentire cum Ecclesia: Synod on the Word "Boring"?Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-43373495136765941952008-10-29T14:18:00.000+11:002008-10-29T14:18:00.000+11:00PE has it right, Susan. This attitude toward the t...PE has it right, Susan. This attitude toward the text and the church's tradition forms a piece with that attitude the Holy Father was criticising <A HREF="http://www.zenit.org/article-23980?l=english" REL="nofollow">in his address to the Synod</A> about scriptural exegetical scholars being divorced from theology and tradition.<BR/><BR/>This is what is behind the nonsense that is going on up in Brisbane here in Australia. See my comments on Fr Kennedy's essay (which is exactly on this topic you mention) <A HREF="http://cumecclesia.blogspot.com/2008/10/fr-peter-kennedy-of-st-marys-south.html" REL="nofollow">here.</A>Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-6905610979006468682008-10-29T06:43:00.000+11:002008-10-29T06:43:00.000+11:00No takers? Well hell, then:"how do they know that...No takers? Well hell, then:<BR/><BR/>"how do they know that?" To be properly impressive at faculty receptions, graduate seminars, mall openings, and other ceremonial but useless events, one must call such a question an epistemological questioning of an ontological position.<BR/><BR/>Having epistemologically questioned their ontological position, the answer is -- holy crap, they don't know that at all, there is no independent source, no Book of the Proceedings of Matthew's Community, at all, yes, it is simply inferred that because it is formulaic it must have been interjected later: the believing community expressing its experience of Jesus by putting that experience in his mouth, which is not just making stuff up, but a mode of ancient authorship where if the sentiments are those to whom they are ascribed, the author, then the words of the writer do not have to be, and, as the believing community reflects ever more deeply upon its experience, it may find other formulae more helpful -- Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier, say, rather than Father, Son, Holy Ghost -- thus the sentiments remain and the believing community endures as its self-understanding and awareness develops, no change in essentials, only details.<BR/><BR/>At least that's how it was explained to me in Roman Catholic scriptural theology classes taken by theology majors and seminarians. After the Revolution, er, Vatican II, of course.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-77440592313334963552008-10-29T03:55:00.000+11:002008-10-29T03:55:00.000+11:00While we are on the subject of exegesis, what do y...While we are on the subject of exegesis, what do you think of sentences like this one, thrown casually into the chapter on the sacraments in a book on Catholicism,<BR/>Referring to Matt 28:29,"Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" <BR/>The book then comments "This baptismal formula in the name of the Trinity, rather than coming from the risen Jesus himself, reflects the practie of Mathew's community in th e70s who experienced the risen Lord present in their midst." <BR/><BR/>Now, how do they know that? As far as I know, there isn't any independent source which tells what was going on in Matthew's community. Are they assuming that Jesus couldn't have said that because it is too theological and formulaic, so it must have come later? They have some wisdom which tells them what the incarnate God could and could not have said? <BR/><BR/>Please help me with this.<BR/>Susan Petersoneulogoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06975120700184179765noreply@blogger.com