(He has an open invitation to plug his work at American Creation.)
I have seen Mr. Gordon accurately (in my opinion) use the terms "Protestant" and "Enlightenment" together where Protestantism precedes Enlightenment. As a term: "Prot-Enlightenment." From an historical perspectives, the thought movements are associated with various periods of time. You have in this order: Renaissance, Reformation (Protestant), Enlightenment.
And the political theology of the American founding was a nice "fit" somewhere between "Protestantism" and "Enlightenment." Hence we have David Holmes terming the theology "Christian-Deism." And Gregg Frazer, "theistic rationalism," which is a hybrid midpoint between Protestant Christianity and strict Deism.
With Protestantism, all individual believers were priests who could read the Bible and decide for themselves how to understand it. With Enlightenment, they could go further than the initial reformers did and continue to disregard ground the original reformers and Roman Catholics have in common, like the Trinity, Incarnation and other doctrines.
The reformers and Catholics dispute which books of the Bible themselves are inspired. The Catholic Bible has 73 books, the Protestant 66. There is tremendously complex history on how the Bible came to be and why Protestants and Catholics differ. The Catholics call the seven disputed books "deuterocanonicals," the Protestants call them "Apocrypha."
Those disputed books are part of the Old Testament. Catholics and the reformers agree on the 27 books that make up the New. But even in compiling the books of the New, there was debate and dispute. Just as there were disputed books of the Old, so too with the New. They call disputed New Testament books Antilegomena.
From the Wiki link:
The antilegomena or "disputed writings" were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache.[2][3]During the period of Enlightenment, theological unitarianism became en vogue among some liberal theologians. But that's not a new idea. It goes back all the way to Arius and the Council of Nicea. Likewise, when Thomas Jefferson read books in the canon like the Book of Revelation and concluded it wasn't inspired, this had been done before with the Antilegomena.
But Jefferson did, seemingly, go beyond mere "dispute." As he put it:
[I]t is between 50. and 60. years since I read it, & I then considered it as merely the ravings of a Maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.Though, I have seen some "orthodox" believers criticize and reject books of the deuterocanonicals in a similarly harsh manner.
42 comments:
The Protestant Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries began the process of reinterpreting the Bible, even to the point of disputing what should be in it.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/legaspi357930.shtml
However, in the wake of the traumatic religious divisions of the sixteenth century, the fractured Church ceased to be a unified body capable of maintaining a coherent claim on the Bible as its Bible. Because both Roman Catholics and Protestants claimed the Bible, in different ways, as their own, the Bible could no longer function unproblematically as Scripture. Its nature and authority had to be explicated and legitimated with reference to extra-scriptural concepts, whether juridically, as among Catholics, or doctrinally, as among Protestants.
Over the course of the post-Reformational controversies, the Bible showed itself to be a contested legacy for Western Christians, ultimately devolving into a multiplicity of bibles with distinct canons, separate ecclesial contexts, and prolific theological superstructures. What had functioned centrally in the life of the Church became, in the early modern period, a kind of textual proving ground for the legitimacy of extra-scriptural theoretical understandings: at first theological and polemical and then, over time, literary, philosophical, and cultural. As a text, an object of critical analysis, the Bible came into clearer focus; however, as Scripture, the Bible became increasingly opaque.
The next step the influenced the [often self-styled] intellectuals of the American Founding was the "biblical criticism" of the Germans in particular, which put the Bible itself in a new light. Between 1776, when this stuff was just starting, and 1787 when the Constitution was written, much had happened on the Enlightenment front.
Skeptics, rationalist critics, and proponents of the new science published widely and influentially on the state of its textual corruption, the unreliability of its historical narratives, the crudeness of its style, and, in some cases, the fanciful, even childish quality of its stories. It was, to many elites, a book no longer worth believing. Richard Popkin has argued persuasively that skepticism toward the Bible had its roots in an intellectual crisis provoked by prolonged, unresolved theological disputes about how to guarantee the truth of Catholic and Protestant hermeneutics.
Yes, Protestantism opened the door to the Enlightenment, and then the Enlightenment turned around and put the torch to Protestantism.
a Catholic fundamentalist
And who taught you this inane formulation?
You have a better way of putting it?
#And who taught you this (Catholic fundamentalist) inane formulation?"
From the National Catholic Reporter:
"The Vatican continues to make its case against Christian and Catholic fundamentalism. La Civiltà Cattolica, a Jesuit magazine with ties to the Vatican, published a lengthy article on the genesis and effects of fundamentalism in the United States. One of the article's co-authors, Jesuit Fr. Antonio Spadaro, is a close confidant of Pope Francis."
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/vatican-speaks-out-against-fundamentalism-again
Anonymous jimmiraybob said...
#And who taught you this (Catholic fundamentalist) inane formulation?"
From the National Catholic Reporter:
we don't expect our left-wing friends to actually know anything about this topic but using NCR as a source here is laughable on its face.
https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16911
January 25, 2013
Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, Missouri, has confirmed that the National Catholic Reporter should not advertise itself as a “Catholic” publication.
________________________________
I rather agree with Art Deco but decided to not to make an issue of it. "Fundamentalist" is pejorative in this case, as though 'traditionalist' Timothy Gordon is some sort of intellectual brute or outside normative Catholicism.
Something like "conservative" or even "paleo-conservative" might be more proper. Gordon is a critic of the current pope--as are many conservative Catholics including cardinals and bishops--but unlike the sedevacantists* and other fundamentalists, accepts Francis as legitimate.
*Very 'inside Catholic baseball,' but far more accurate than NCR's facile hackery. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-society-of-st-pius-x-and-dissident-traditionalism
we don't expect our left-wing friends to actually know anything about this topic...
Sigh. I’m not engaging in your little intra-Catholic squabbling about who is and who isn’t the true defender of the faith, I was merely pointing out that Jon is not alone in recognizing a form of Catholic fundamentalism. You know, because someone asked? See how that works?
I know that it is your driving life force to present the cranky contrarian “conservative” voice to anything that you perceive to be less conservative than Opus Dei, but please try to be less wrong when you do it.
"Fundamentalist" is pejorative here. I sustain Art Deco's objection.
And the National Catholic Reporter is not an authoritative source, in fact it is anything but. Do better next time if you want to try to contribute something useful.
"And the National Catholic Reporter is not an authoritative source, in fact it is anything but."
You bring no substantive argument, just opinionated assertion.
And, if anything, your argument, should you decide to manufacture one, should be directed at "La Civiltà Cattolica". Maybe reading the article would help.
By citing the far-left National Catholic Reporter--which has been repudiated by its own church--you just illustrated how pejorative and inappropriate the use here of "fundamentalist" is.
As usual, your demurral only serves to prove the original point.
You have a better way of putting it?
As does anyone. I don't see it as a pejorative, but it appends a modifier to a group of Catholic communicants coined to describe evangelical protestants who subscribe to a particular mode of interpreting Scripture. The Church reads Sacred Scripture according to several senses, not just the literal sense.
There are as we speak modifiers to describe Catholics who take exception to much of what has gone on since 1962 and there are publications who promote that viewpoint. "Traditionalist" is the term. In the last six years, the distinction between "Traditionalist" and "conservative" Catholics has largely dissipated due to the hostility of the Pope and his camarilla to the Church's historical teachings and those who promote them. There remains, of course, a spectrum of views on the centrality of the Traditional Latin Mass to Catholic life.
You bring no substantive argument, just opinionated assertion.
What he said was not an opinion. The National Catholic Reporter is a project of lay Catholics. It has no teaching authority in the Church nor does it have scholarly chops. It was founded to promote dissent from the Church's established teachings. (This is in contrast to Commonweal, which was orthodox on faith and morals for decades, though no longer).
OK, OK. I'll type real slow.
The primary source that the far leftist Catholic dissenting rag cites is a Jesuit project - "La Civiltà Cattolica" whose claim is to have been reflecting the mind of the Vatican since 1850. Take it up with them. Presumably they have the authority that you seek.
I will provide a few snippets from the "La Civiltà Cattolica" article:
"These stances are based on Christian-Evangelical fundamentalist principles dating from the beginning of the 20th Century that have been gradually radicalized."
"Appealing to the values of fundamentalism, a strange form of surprising ecumenism is developing between Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic Integralists brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere."
"The fundamentalist theopolitical plan is to set up a kingdom of the divinity here and now."
To reiterate, there was a question asked and I provided an answer.
OK, OK. I'll type real slow.
You want to be condescending, you have to know something. You don't. That your hobby is being a pest for the hell of it doesn't accord you any knowledge.
"You want to be condescending, you have to know something. You don't."
Sorry Boo, but when you asked "And who taught you this inane formulation?" I thought I'd answer with one possible where. Instead of facing up to that you and your cohort choose to insult the messenger. Nice.
Jesuits. FFS. He keeps digging deeper and deeper.
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/road-peace/leaving-jesuits-after-32-years
Dude, you know nothing of the subject.
"Dude, you know nothing of the subject."
Dude. You keep missing the point and missing the point and missing the point. I'm not advocating anything other that where - key being "where" - someone might learn such a formulation. I'm not advocating for the authority of those sources or intimating that they are the only possible sources for the formulation of the idea of Catholic fundamentalism. But, anyone reading the sources might get a clue about how the formulation can come about.
Question asked, question answered.
You may now have the final word.
Yes, calling Gordon "fundamentalist" is a left-wing formulation and you prove the point by only being able to cite far-left sources.
Once again you end up proving the point you're trying to rebut, because once again the facts are not on your side.
"Once again you end up proving the point you're trying to rebut,..."
He shoots. He misses. Again.
'no it's not' is not an argument
you should apply your manifestly formidable Google skills to actually learning something about the Jesuits LOL
Seriously dude, you're embarrassing the blog. Words do not seem to be getting to your brain. Maybe it's the shades. Maybe you should try transitions.
Jesuits are far-left. Using them as your source lost you the debate.
Again dude, there was no debate.
Someone asked about formulating the Catholic Fundamentalist conception and I merely provided one possible source. The "debate" appears to be happening in your head.
And, as I alluded to above, anything more liberal than Opus Dei seems to completely wreck you. So of course the Jesuits are "far-left."
I would, however, be interested in hearing the reasons that you consider make them "far-left."
I would, however, be interested in hearing the reasons that you consider make them "far-left."
You can start with the career of Peter Marchetti, SJ. Or the Berrigan brothers.
That aside, what's notable about the Jesuits is deep corruption. They have a few prominent men devoted to the Church's mission (e.g. Fr. Joseph Fessio, Fr. Paul Mankowski, and Fr. Paul O'Shaughnessy). For the most part, it's a gay cult and the output of America makes plain that it's controlled by an open cabal of the Church's enemies. The rot's been there for some decades. Fr. Mankowski has said the majority of men he entered formation with in 1974 were homosexuals hiding in the tall grass. That the College of Cardinals selected one of the dopier members of this outfit is an indication of rot at the Church's apex and center that hasn't been seen in 500 years.
here's the good news though
He explained to me that the Society of Jesus has renounced Fr. Pedro Arrupe's groundbreaking vision of justice and the documents of the 31st and 32nd General Congregations, which call for a radical commitment to justice. It no longer advocates for justice or works for justice, he told me. The Maryland Province has closed all its projects that serve the poor. From now on, he said, because the number of Jesuits is in sharp decline, U.S. Jesuits will only serve in our 25 universities and 25 high schools. This direction, it seems to me, differs vastly from the order I entered in 1982, with its visionary call to "accompany Jesus as he carries the cross in the struggle for justice." If I stayed, he said, I would have to work in one of the Jesuit high schools.
only 50 more to go
at the moment there are more ex-Jesuits in America than Jesuits
circling the bowl
"The rot's been there for some decades. Fr. Mankowski has said the majority of men he entered formation with in 1974 were homosexuals hiding in the tall grass."
I'm not anti-celibacy. In the ideal, celibacy/sexual sublimation seems connected with some amazing human accomplishments.
Though, it really hasn't, as I see it, worked in the modern Catholic world. Homosexual men tend to be more intelligent, consequently educated, and nurturing ("pastoral") than average. Add to that the mandatory celibacy requirement, and the Catholic priesthood seems to disproportionately select for homosexuals.
I'd change that requirement and allow married men into the priesthood.
However, as someone who isn't a practicing Catholic, I understand, it's in no way my call.
NB: Married men ARE allowed into the priesthood, under certain circumstances. Celibacy is a custom, not a sine qua non.
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pope-married-priests-2017-story.html
As for homosexual clergy, it is quite a reach to argue that it is a benefit. In the least, it can lead to a certain "clubbiness" that is antithetical to the work of a pastor.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/the-lavender-mafia-unmasked
We are getting off topic. Not arguing a "benefit." Rather conditions that disproportionately "select" for homosexuals.
Even when there is no mandatory celibacy requirement, homosexual men are disproportionately involved in "nurturing" (pastoral) type jobs.
I'd like to see some data. I would think just as likely to be prison guards.
"I would think just as likely to be prison guards."
Well they certainly exist too. I've met at least two of them. But I've met more nurses, and come to think of it MDs (and JDs) and social workers.
There is a little in the below link. Though I tend to trust my anecdotal observations more than 20th and 21st century social science.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2016/01/18/there-may-be-some-truth-to-the-gay-jobs-stereotype/
I know we are totally off topic. Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson once played a bad ass gay guy in a movie and noted he had a wrestler friend who had helped raise him who was also gay. The kind of guy you didn't want to f--k with.
A lot of people think that because the outcomes of wrestling are predetermined and that it's "sports entertainment" that it's fake. John Stossel found out the hard way about that assumption.
They are tough customers that you don't want to mess with.
So this guy who influenced The Rock has got to be the legendary Pat Patterson, who would have made a great prison guard. The problem is that there aren't enough of him.
You are much likelier to see a gay mafia take over the ranks of figure skating, ballet, classical music, musical theater, etc. because IMO there's disproportionate talent there.
(I know, I could be just full of sh!t.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rhBqUIDOO4
Interesting that most of those are not financially self-sufficient and are vulnerable to politicking and hiring your pals.
See O'Sullivan's Law. "Mafia" indeed.
The thing about Bernstein though is he was really good. But he did support some pretty ridiculously left wing "vanguard" political position.
And I was discussing him on a Straussian forum and someone replied:
"It was no secret that Lenny pursued boys. A Juilliard student told me in the Sixties that he had half of the Juilliard males."
I think the problem here -- the whole me too thing -- is male human nature. Charlie Rose was one of the greatest interviewers of the modern era; but still ....
Charlie Rose was one of the greatest interviewers of the modern era; but still ....
No, he was the man they hired and functioned satisfactorily in that position, which is why he kept it for 30 years. I don't recall when he started at the old overnight program on CBS that he was noticeably better than his predecessor, Lem Tucker. Have juries blindly grade interview transcripts and I doubt his scores would improve on Brian Lamb or Mike Wallace or Dave Garroway.
Garroway ruled:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSIKXcCPVqc
Bernstein's bisexuality has been known to the broader public for 35 years or more. (The notion that he had scores of sexual conquests among the Juilliard student body smells of urban legend). That political intelligence isn't well-correllated with general intelligence (much less with creativity) is well understood as well. The term 'radical chic' was coined to Tom Wolfe to describe Bernstein and his wife (fundraising for the black panther party). Ca. 1980, he made an idiot out of himself advocating unilateral disarmament. The man was quite a gift to the common life, but not to that portion of it you'd call 'civic life'.
I first got wind of the disproportionate gay influence at Berklee College of Music when a classical music head, fellow student was talking about a friend of his who was up for some prestigious position in an orchestra. He said the guy only had two problems: 1. He wasn't Jewish; and 2. He was straight.
Bernstein’s homosexual proclivities were undisputed and well documented. Because he married and had children, many people assume he was bisexual. But Arthur Laurents, who collaborated with Bernstein on West Side Story, related that Bernstein was simply "a gay man who got married. He wasn't conflicted about his sexual orientation at all. He was just gay." Leonard Bernstein, Jerome Robbins, Arthur Laurents and Stephen Sondheim were the four gay Jewish men, all working at the very top of their craft, who created West Side Story, one of the most enduring musicals of the 20th century. Like many gay men of his generation, Bernstein appeared to be a devoted husband and father in public while carrying on a promiscuous homosexual life behind the scenes.
http://gayinfluence.blogspot.com/2011/07/leonard-bernstein.html
Bernstein’s homosexual proclivities were undisputed and well documented. Because he married and had children, many people assume he was bisexual. But Arthur Laurents, who collaborated with Bernstein on West Side Story, related that Bernstein was simply "a gay man who got married. He wasn't conflicted about his sexual orientation at all. He was just gay."
The character string 'Laurents' does not appear in the memoir written by Bernstein's daughter. Why do you think that is?
Bernstein collaborated with Laurents and two other men on a theatrical project - briefly in 1949 and again during the period running from 1955-57. (At a time when Bernstein had a number of other irons in the fire, not just work with Laurents, Robbins, and Sondheim). He and Laurents had no other professional collaborations. Some surviving correspondence is consistent with the thesis that Bernstein didn't much care for Laurents personally.
Here's a suggestion: Bernstein and Laurents weren't personal friends at any level, much less so intimate the Bernstein would be confiding in Laurents about his marital / sexual problems.
when a classical music head, fellow student was talking about a friend of his who was up for some prestigious position in an orchestra. He said the guy only had two problems: 1. He wasn't Jewish; and 2. He was straight.
You mean Berklee College of Music does the hiring for that particular orchestra?
"You mean Berklee College of Music does the hiring for that particular orchestra?"
No, what I remember was the guy was a Harvard BA grad. who was studying at Berklee for a year or two or perhaps to get a 2nd bachelors. I don't think he majored in music at Harvard, but was just a good musician nonetheless. He was writing his own musical at 23 or so and he had a lot of connections.
He was one of those people who hated Andrew LLoyd Weber and John Williams, but loved Sondheim and the more legit. composers.
"Here's a suggestion: Bernstein and Laurents weren't personal friends at any level, much less so intimate the Bernstein would be confiding in Laurents about his marital / sexual problems."
It could be. Bernstein's daughter, as I've mentioned elsewhere, said he seemed happier when he was married to Felicia and playing the role of Father. The problem is (or perhaps it's not a problem) that he had homosexual liaisons the entire time.
He did end up divorcing Felicia and adopting more a "gay man" identity.
I think it was in this context which his daughter suggested he was happier the other way; however her observations might have been clouded by her fond memories and perceptions of the ideal. That was her Dad after all.
He did end up divorcing Felicia and adopting more a "gay man" identity.
No. She died of cancer in 1978. They had a period of separation ca. 1976, but never divorced. Seriously doubt he was much of a cruiser between the ages of 57 and 73. AFAICR, he was never involved in any sort of public agitation on that particular issue.
I think it was in this context which his daughter suggested he was happier the other way; however her observations might have been clouded by her fond memories and perceptions of the ideal. That was her Dad after all.
The list of people I've ever known who I can say with confidence idealized their father numbers precisely one, and in her case 35 years after his death (not when he was still around barking at her mother).
From Wiki. Shirley Rhoades Perle may have best captured Lenny's nuance. I know some gay men (the more masculine types) where women just seem off their radar screens. But others who have more of an affinity for women and the feminine persona. They tend to have best female friends. And sometimes they marry (more common in the past) their bff.
Though in terms of making "arrangements," given what I've read, I couldn't imagine a more understanding and accommodating wife than Felica.
"In a book released in October 2013, The Leonard Bernstein Letters, his wife acknowledges his homosexuality. Felicia writes: "you are a homosexual and may never change—you don't admit to the possibility of a double life, but if your peace of mind, your health, your whole nervous system depend on a certain sexual pattern what can you do?" Arthur Laurents (Bernstein's collaborator in West Side Story) said that Bernstein was "a gay man who got married. He wasn't conflicted about it at all. He was just gay."[46] Shirley Rhoades Perle, another friend of Bernstein, said that she thought "he required men sexually and women emotionally."[47]"
It should occur to you that there's something odoriferous about two sentences being recycled ad nauseam about this man, one a sentence fragment offered without context and one from someone who had a circumscribed acquaintanceship with him over a period of less than three years. That ain't him. That's the stupid latter-day cultural matrix we live in.
Post a Comment