A couple of comments on Mr. Arroyo’s remembrance of Fr. Neuhaus are in order.

First of he, he did not abandon liberalism, liberalism abandoned him. Neuhaus was and always remained an advocate for civil rights and the poor, but when liberalism embraced Roe v. Wade, and made unqualified support for abortion rights a litmus test for participation in politics via the Democratic Party, Neuhaus departed, having been effectively excluded.

As the Republican Party simultaneously moved leftward in some areas and came to support many of the issues advocated by the civil rights movement that Neuhaus supported, he found it more hospitable to his views than his former colleagues in the Democratic Party. This is hardly a unique circumstance, and is probably representative of the reaction of many 60s liberals motivated by Christian social justice issues who declined to sell their souls to pro-abortion politics.

But Neuhaus deserves to remembered not for his politics, as Mr. Arroyo belatedly acknowledges. Neuhaus’ main contribution to public discourse is the contention that a religious perspective is an appropriate and even necessary part of that discourse, regardless of political ideology or party affiliation. A religious perspective is not something to be shunted away as merely private. Hence the title of Fr. Neuhaus most famous book, “The Naked Public Square,” referring to the new (since the 1970s) prejudice against a religious perspective in public discourse.

I appreciate A. Steven-Arroyho's comments on the late R.J.Neuhaus. I could not agree with him more in seeing Neuhaus as a "...low-watt politics-cum-theology commentator..." who made his mark in these recent reactionary times as an apologist for religion as devotion while ignoring the history of religion. Stevens-Arroyho's view serves as a welcome antidote to much that has found its way into the days news. I found espcially offensive G.Weigel's narrow and myopic encomium that appeared in Newseek. Obviously that magazine feels that his presentation is the best they can get from an inside vatican catholic. They let Weigel do the same kind of simplistic, hagiography for Karol Wojtyla when he died.
I knew of Neuhaus in the 60s when he was an anti-the-war personality and critical of the fundamentalist sector in his Lutheran tradition. I read of him next when he was "recieved" into our vatican catholic tradition. At that time and even more later, I wondered about someone in relgion, who at the height of the ecumenical movement, would think it appropriate, meaningful, and necessary to move from one church to another. Those of us involved in ecumenism at the time spoke of that as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. From our perspective he was moving to Catholic substance, but leaving the Protestant principal. To many of us, gospel truth suggested otherwise. Joe Fiorino

Hi Mary (Cunningham of London)!

Thanks for your post addressed to me on the blog of Dr Timothy Shriver. Since the blog does not accept any more comments I could not post a reply. It would not be appropriate to post it here.

Even though it is late in the year, a Happy New Year 2009 to you and all your loved ones!

Best wishes
Soja

MARY_CUNNINGHAM

Thank you for your, "Here is the link to the Vatican's reasoning on Fr Haight."

Did you notice this in that link it says, "The Author’s position is in reality contrary to the doctrine of the Church, which has always held that Jesus intended his death to be for the sake of universal redemption."

Also from that link, "The Author insists on the necessity of moving beyond christocentrism to theocentrism, which “cuts the necessity of binding God’s salvation to Jesus of Nazareth alone”

As far as I am concerned, the way that I look at it but most likely not the way Fr Haight looks at it, christocentrism and theocentrism is one and the same since Jesus is God-Incarnate, not some symbol, and God's has had His Plan since before creation and God's Plan will come to Fruition.

The link states that Fr Haight wrote, “God acts in the lives of human beings in a plurality of ways outside of Jesus and the Christian sphere”

God has His Plan which includes but is not limited to: The Jews being the Chosen People, God-Incarnate being a Jew, Jesus, God-Incarnate, founding a Church with many branches with the mission of "the gates of the netherworld not prevailing against it", how else God is working in this world is God's decision not mine or any other human or human institution to say.

These are some of my thoughts on the link that you provided, thanks again.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hmmm, one wonders why Thomas "The Hallucinator" did not ask his good "buds" the trinity the meaning of "Pauletalasizing". Anyway, "Paul et al (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John), the semi-fiction writers who tried to deify a simple preacher man aka Jesus i.e. a sizing (glaze)."

With respect to the OT and knowing god? Hmmm, the OT is basically myths and the stories about god interacting with the Jews were created by some creative Jewish scribes.

www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

With respect to the Incarnation: to reiterate,

"Lüdemann [Jesus, 122-24] presents four (4) reasons for regarding the miraculous conception of Jesus as unhistorical: (1) Numerous parallels in the history of religion; (2) it represents a rare and late NT tradition; (3) Synoptic descriptions of Jesus' relations with his family are inconsistent with such an event; and (4) scientific considerations.

With respect to sending the holy spirit/ghost: to reiterate-

Well, well, well, Thomas "the Hallucinator" Baum is back "thumping" his favorite "sending the holy spirit as our guide/teacher" as something the simple preacher man said. But did he?

No he did not according to many contemporary NT and historical Jesus exegetes.

e.g.

1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt 10:19-20
(2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15
(3) John 14:26

Crossan analysis:
Item: 62
Stratum: I (30-60 CE)
Attestation: Triple
Historicity: -

The commentary in The Five Gospels (p. 110) observes:

The sayings in Mark 13:9-13 all reflect detailed knowledge of events that took place -- or ideas that were current -- after Jesus' death: trial and persecution of Jesus' followers, the call to preach the gospel to all nations, advice to offer spontaneous testimony, and the prediction that families would turn against one another are features of later Christian existence, not of events in Galilee or Jerusalem during Jesus' lifetime.

Gird Ludemann [Jesus, 89] sees this saying as coming from the community after Easter.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/062_Spirit_under_Trial"

CCNL

You wrote, "And Thomas "The Hallucinator" Baum somehow has knowledge of the unknowable god!!! Hmmmm???"

Considering that God throughout the Old Testament was revealing different things to different people, how can you say He is "unknowable"?

Considering that God became One of us in the Incarnation, how can you say that God is "unknowable"?

Considering that Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us, how can you say that God is "unknowable"?

You also wrote, "To say the least Thomas suffers from a severe case of "Pauletalasizing"."

Mighty fancy word there, would you like to explain it?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Any Jesuit that's been silenced by the Church has probably got something of value to say. Teilhard de Chardin suffered the same fate, although now 'officially' revered for his early work on evolution and 'spiritual' cosmology. Oh, how the worm turns!

Father Neuhaus seems more typical of the ultra-conservative Vaticanized rubber stamps that find such favor with the Bishop of Rome these days - and in former times as well.

The most notorious of Church conservatives can be seen just below. Hopefully his kind have been successfully expurgated forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

And Thomas "The Hallucinator" Baum somehow has knowledge of the unknowable god!!! Hmmmm??? To say the least Thomas suffers from a severe case of "Pauletalasizing".

Selected pastes from this thread on the correspondence between the demented racist MC and your truly. For more, scroll down. Unlike said lunatic MC, I haven't the time to go combing through the archives sifting through hundreds of posts, to select from among her various always racist identities the most ignorant and repugnant comments.
_________________

On Mary Cunningham's ludicrous assertion:

"Judaic concept of God as a person"

See my earlier post. There is no "Judaic concept of God as a person," except (now and before though subsequently denied) in MC's demented supersessionist imaginings. The Tannaim, Akiva, et al, of the first century (whose existence, unlike that of JC, is certain) inherited a centuries old tradition of a singular God, nonanthropomorphic, so abstract as to be called Hashem (name). That is, the deity could not be named by humans since to name is to conceptualize.

Some Catholic theologians, Reuther among them, have asserted that JC was a throwback to an anthropomorphic deity discarded centuries earlier by Judaism, a claim for which no evidence has, as yet, been adduced. More evidence attaches to the JC construct and Tammuz.

January 14, 2009 7:28 AM |

Farnaz2 Author Profile Page:

MaryCunningham aka Speed123 aka thehereandnow aka peer review, et al.

Slander away....It's what you're good at under your whatever guise you post. I've no desire to "chat" with you, but will not let stand your appallingly ignorant, not to say bigoted, comments on Judaism and Jews.

Au revoir. Safe trip.

January 14, 2009 7:20 AM |

Mary_Cunningham Author Profile Page:

And before we go any further, Farnaz2, I have absolutely no desire to communicate with someone whose alterego is Observer12. Who under that name has posted here successive waves vicious anti-Catholicism, who called me a C__t (rhymes with runt) not once but several times on separate occasions when I protested, I could go on, but why?

Anyway, I shouldn't be posting here at all.

January 14, 2009 7:07 AM |

CCNL

I guess that it is beyond the complexities of the "learned" to comprehend when it says, "The mysteries of the Kingdom has been given unto the simple" or words to that effect.

I believe that you have mentioned that if something isn't repeated enough in the bible then some of the "learned" throw it away.

Yet, if it is not mentioned at all, the "learned" come up with all kinds of scenarios of their own, as if to say, this is what they changed so here we are to set you straight.

I don't know how well you might know some of these people but how do they come up with a concensus, do they use a coin toss?

God did not make it complicated, as a matter of fact it is very simple and understandable, I guess that is why some find it so hard to believe.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

CCNL

You wrote, "Lüdemann (Jesus, 280f) finds the genealogies in both Matthew and Luke to be theological creations with no historical basis. In similar vein he finds no historical value in the dispute over the davidic lineage of the Messiah (Mark 12:35-37 and parallels), finding it instead to be the product of "a learned scribal" effort to demonstrate that Jesus is "more than son of David, namely son of God.""

You mean to tell me that they went thru all of that and didn't even notice that the genealogies as presented weren't even of Jesus.

Jesus said a few things about the "learned" of His day.

God is a lot "nicer" to put it mildly than quite a few think and sadly to say than quite a few want Him to be.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom on the seventh day in the new heavens and the new earth.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

And Thomas "the Moses of the NT" Baum gives the specifics of his hallucinations:

"Jesus, God-Incarnate, became One of us when Mary said YES and that is when He became the Son of God and the Son of Man until then He was God.

I have met the Trinity and I know that God is a Trinity but I can't explain it and I don't have to, I could give an analogy but that is all that it would be, an analogy."

From two historical Jesus exegetes:

"Gerd Lüdemann

Lüdemann (Jesus, 280f) finds the genealogies in both Matthew and Luke to be theological creations with no historical basis. In similar vein he finds no historical value in the dispute over the davidic lineage of the Messiah (Mark 12:35-37 and parallels), finding it instead to be the product of "a learned scribal" effort to demonstrate that Jesus is "more than son of David, namely son of God." (Jesus, 87)

Lüdemann [Jesus, 122-24] presents four (4) reasons for regarding the miraculous conception of Jesus as unhistorical: (1) Numerous parallels in the history of religion; (2) it represents a rare and late NT tradition; (3) Synoptic descriptions of Jesus' relations with his family are inconsistent with such an event; and (4) scientific considerations.

More positively, Lüdemann concludes that we can extract as a historical fact behind Matt 1.18-25 the existence of a hostile rumor about the illegitimacy of Jesus. Lüdemann suggests that rape by an unnamed man, possibly even a Roman soldier, is the most likely explanation. He notes that while such an event would have disqualified Mary from marriage to a priest, it would not have prevented from marrying and have other children.

Lüdemann [Jesus, 261-63] discounts Luke's account as a legend deriving from Jewish Hellenistic circles that were concerned to hold together the procreation of the Spirit, the authentic sonship of the Messiah and the virginal conception. "

John P. Meier

Meier [Marginal Jew I,216-219] notes that the "affirmation of Jesus' descent from David might easily be placed alongside his birth at Bethlehem as a theologoumenon (a theological insight narrated as a historical event) if it were not for the fact that numerous and diverse streams of NT tradition also affirm Jesus' Davidic lineage." Meier suggests that the belief that Jesus was "son of David" may have been held by Jesus' followers prior to his death, with his resurrection then being understood as a form of enthronement. However, he notes that such messianic views, whatever their provenance, cannot prove Jesus was "literally, biologically of Davidic stock."

Retrieved from "http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/007_Of_Davids_Lineage"

from "http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/026_Of_Davids_Lineage

Mary C,

To determine the quality of books, one must read said books. After reading some of Crossan books and those written by Spong, you will conclude that the scholarship of Professor Crossan far exceeds that of Bishop Spong. We await your critical reviews.

FARNAZ2

You wrote, "There is no "Judaic concept of God as a person,".

Do not confuse person and human. Didn't the Old Testament Moses speak with God and God with Moses?

There are quite a few other places in the Old Testament where people have had "personable", so to speak, encounters with God.

When I speak about when I met God the Father, even tho He did not say a word, I could say that He was, to say the least, personable but that is not even close to saying that He is human.

Actually God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE and we are made in His Image and if Love shines thru us then His Image is shining thru us.

Language to me is to communicate and since I am human, I have to use human language.

When I met God the Holy Spirit, He did not say a word to me either but He did communicate to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.

There is the whole Trinity, it is immaterial whether anyone believes me or not, God revealed Himself to me and God is a Trinity.

Jesus, God-Incarnate, became One of us when Mary said YES and that is when He became the Son of God and the Son of Man until then He was God.

I have met the Trinity and I know that God is a Trinity but I can't explain it and I don't have to, I could give an analogy but that is all that it would be, an analogy.

God is spoken of quite often in a Personable Way in the Old Testament but as God not human.

Semantics, language, can be a very useful tool in trying to communicate and it can be used as a bridge from one to another or as an impenetrable fortress built around someone.

God became One of us, how more personable could God be?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Farnaz2:

Here is my communication with On Faith complaining about your foul language:

"Offensive comment by commenter 'observer12' about the entry 'Catholics Go For Obama' in Thomas J. Reese on November 6, 2008 7:35 AM

To: onfaith@washingtonpost.com

"I object very much to being called a c__t. Could you kindly remove this. Thank you."

I sent three successive posts to On Faith objecting at your usage. They were finally removed at 2:24 (London time) when I sent a note thanking them.

Also all of Observer12's comments were similarly removed on the same day from Jacques Berlinerblau. I did not protest them as I don't post there. Someone else did.

You Farnaz2--YOU--post as Observer 12. Here are the posts from Arroyo-Stevens: Here they are in chronological order:

From observer12 :
Catholic Priest Officiates at Fully-Uniformed Nazi's Funeral
.................
January 7, 2009 4:24 AM

From Farnaz2 :
CCNL:

I know Farnaz is on some sort of campaign to save your sorry ass, but I'm not. Get lost.

January 7, 2009 4:33 AM | Report Offensive Comment

Posted on January 7, 2009 04:33

From Farnaz2 :
CCNL;

If you want to convert, on the other hand, we'll be happy to help. You'll need to see a rabbi of course.

January 7, 2009 4:35 AM | Report Offensive Comment

From Farnaz2:

Last thoughts.

Lots of good synagogues in Philadelphia. Just say the word.

Farnaz

January 7, 2009 4:36 AM

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the life of me, I don't know who you post for or what you are playing at. But you are unstable. All those personae. And it seems you post on behalf of some Jewish organisation. They should cut your contract at once.

On Mary Cunningham's ludicrous assertion:

"Judaic concept of God as a person"

See my earlier post. There is no "Judaic concept of God as a person," except (now and before though subsequently denied) in MC's demented supersessionist imaginings. The Tannaim, Akiva, et al, of the first century (whose existence, unlike that of JC, is certain) inherited a centuries old tradition of a singular God, nonanthropomorphic, so abstract as to be called Hashem (name). That is, the deity could not be named by humans since to name is to conceptualize.

Some Catholic theologians, Reuther among them, have asserted that JC was a throwback to an anthropomorphic deity discarded centuries earlier by Judaism, a claim for which no evidence has, as yet, been adduced. More evidence attaches to the JC construct and Tammuz.

MaryCunningham aka Speed123 aka thehereandnow aka peer review, et al.

Slander away....It's what you're good at under your whatever guise you post. I've no desire to "chat" with you, but will not let stand your appallingly ignorant, not to say bigoted, comments on Judaism and Jews.

Au revoir. Safe trip.

And before we go any further, Farnaz2, I have absolutely no desire to communicate with someone whose alterego is Observer12. Who under that name has posted here successive waves vicious anti-Catholicism, who called me a C__t (rhymes with runt) not once but several times on separate occasions when I protested, I could go on, but why?

Anyway, I shouldn't be posting here at all.

Farnaz2,

You must be thinking of someone else. In the little I have written I have generally referenced the tension in ancient Christianity about the precise nature of the Godhead--the difference between the Greek Platonic philosophical notion of the Good and the Judaic concept of God as a person. As the new faith spread outwards from diaspora Jews to the gentiles, Greek notions of philosophy began to be combined with Judaic monotheism in the same faith. This was pretty much completed by AD100, you can see it in the gospel of John.

Of all the Christian faiths it is Catholicism that most replicates this early Christianity, for better or worse. You can see it today in the conflict between Benedict (then Josef Ratzinger) and Fr Haight.

MaryCunningham writes:

"Ranged against this was the experience and entire tradition of the ancient Jews and their concept of God as a PERSON"

Interesting since in a previous post, you protested passionately that you had never made such a claim. Judaism in the century of Jesus (assuming he existed) was the century of Akiva, et al (see Wikipedia). These men inherited an ancient tradition that saw Hashem (name), as categorically not human. Because the deity is singular, it could not be named. To name is to conceptualize, hence, "Hashem."

Judaism had always been radically monotheistic. The notion of a man-god, human incarnation is alien to it. It has been suggested by the Catholic theologian Rosemary Ruether and others that Catholicism harked back to incipient Judaism, dispensed with many centuries earlier, but that has yet to be verified.

CCNL,

You must stop being a propagandist and start being a person. Long lists of Crossan books prove only that, well, he wrote a lot of books. (So did Spong). They say nothing about their quality. Luther wrote a lot of books, so did Freud and the Freudians. I'm not going to start on about Luther, but Freud was certainly wrong.

Anyway, B16 in his Regensburg speech stated that Christianity was the combination of fulfilled Judaism with Greek philosophy. IMHO it was always an unstable amalgam and the tensions found in the writings of the ancients are evident to this day.

Fr Haight writes of Jesus as an IDEA, a SYMBOL. This POV is derived from the metaphysics of the ancient Greeks and, I guess, is most notable in John. Ranged against this was the experience and entire tradition of the ancient Jews and their concept of God as a PERSON. Christian mystics down through the ages--and IMHO Thomas Baum is one--have always experienced God as a PERSON. Really READ Thomas's writing, take off your blinkers--you seem really brainwashed here-- he asserts consistently that the Godhead is a PERSON.

I hesitate in recommending a single book to you but you might try reading some Henri Bergson. I like "Origins of Morality and Religion". Or, failing that, try Kolakowski's brief essay on the gist of his ideas.

Best,
Mary Cunningham
London

No, no, Thomas "Moses of the NT" Baum you are not a messenger but one who suffers from delusions and hallucinations.

And PaulC,

As noted previously:

Professor Crossan et al are not infallible. No historian is but like so many of the contemporary NT and historical Jesus exegetes, Professor Crossan (an On Faith panel member BTW) has reviewed all the scriptural and related documents of the first to third century CE, the OT and all available scholarly texts on the subject of the historic Jesus, applied robust historical screening methods and then and only then have he and others come to the conclusion that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT are authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited

Some of the 23 books written by Professor Crossan and co-authors: (recommended for your search for historical truth)

1973: In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. New York: Harper & Row. Reprinted Polebridge Press, 1992.

1983: "Kingdom and Children: A Study in the Aphoristic Tradition." Semeia 29:75-95

1986: Sayings Parallels. A Workbook for the Jesus Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress.

1991: The Historical Jesus: the life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

1994: Jesus. A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

1996: Who is Jesus? with Watts, Westminster-John Knox Press (excellent starter book)

1998: The Birth of Christianity: Discovering what happened in the years immediately after the execution of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

2001: -- & Jonathan L. Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco

2004: -- & Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco

CCNL:
what is your motivation to continually posting your anti- theist diatribes on these pages? Are you trying to pull people away from religion by quoting JD Crosnan? Do you think he really has any credibility or a following besides you that you could post his findings and convince people to walk away from the truth?

CCNL

You wrote, "And Thomas "The Hallucinator" Baum continues to hallucinate about god!!!"

Actually, I am speaking about God.

I read the http thing that you put up. One of the things that they spoke of but not in detail was Christocentric and Theocentric considering that Christo must refer to Jesus, Who is God-Incarnate and Theo refers to God, they should be one and the same.

What do you think?

By the way, I am not a theologian, I am just a messenger.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

And Thomas "The Hallucinator" Baum continues to hallucinate about god!!!

MONETTE1

You wrote, "Roger Haight taught that Jesus was merely a ''prophet'' and ''savior figure'', much like what is said about Muhammad in islam."

Actually, in islam, Jesus is spoken of as merely a prophet, not that He is God-Incarnate.

I am not familiar with what Roger Haight writes and teaches but I have said many times, that I do not hold it against Muhammad that he was deceived.

Jesus is God-Incarnate and God is a Trinity and God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE.

I have also said many times that: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and also that it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Taking advantage of the death of a great ecumenist, social commentator, and preacher like Richard John Neuhaus, who has credibility on all sides, to call attention to an historically obscure theologian is tacky in the extreme. I am not a neo-con, but I know Fr. Neuhaus was faithful to the tradition and pastorally sensitive. Haight is obscure, barely known outside the ivory tower crowd, and fell to the temptation of engaging in controversy to catch some limelight. The Church, like a good Mother disciplines her children in love. God Bless Neuhaus and Haight, but the staff of your newspaper should be more appropriate than to take advantage of a death in the Catholic family because there seems to be a catchy article opportunity afoot.

RAVITCHN

You wrote, " At least Neuhaus was honest in defending the indefensible church of Rome.".

If one is looking for imperfection, one need not look at the "indefensible church of Rome", one does not need to look beyond oneself.

You also wrote, " The Jesuit in playing games with it was less honest I suspect."

The "Jesuit" would have been "less than honest" if he didn't write what he believed and felt himself led to write.

I am not really familiar with either one of them, I have my own "job" to do which really isn't my "job" but Our job meaning God and mine's.

I am thankful that God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in His Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Well, well, well, Thomas "the Hallucinator" Baum is back "thumping" his favorite "sending the holy spirit as our guide/teacher" as something the simple preacher man said. But did he?

No he did not according to many contemporary NT and historical Jesus exegetes.

e.g.

1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt 10:19-20
(2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15
(3) John 14:26

Crossan analysis:
Item: 62
Stratum: I (30-60 CE)
Attestation: Triple
Historicity: -

The commentary in The Five Gospels (p. 110) observes:

The sayings in Mark 13:9-13 all reflect detailed knowledge of events that took place -- or ideas that were current -- after Jesus' death: trial and persecution of Jesus' followers, the call to preach the gospel to all nations, advice to offer spontaneous testimony, and the prediction that families would turn against one another are features of later Christian existence, not of events in Galilee or Jerusalem during Jesus' lifetime.

Gird Ludemann [Jesus, 89] sees this saying as coming from the community after Easter.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/062_Spirit_under_Trial"

KCARL

You wrote, " If we understood it all, we wouldn't need to study God and we wouldn't be very faithful (faith requires mystery/unknown)."

When God chooses someone to speak for God that person knows some but it doesn't mean that that person knows it all, so it can be a combination of knowing some and believing some.

You also wrote, "History is littered with people who were excommunicated and then (posthumously) declared in good standing as the CHURCH came around, not the individual", I think that it is good and healthy when the Church can admit that it is not perfect.

If people noticed, Pope John Paul II went around the whole world making public penances for the sins of the Catholic Church, not of individual members but of the Church.

Jesus did not say that the Church would be perfect but that the mission of the Church would be acccomplished. Jesus also said, "I Am the Vine, you are the branches", He did NOT say I Am the Vine and you are the branch.

I think you pointed out some good things in your post and I think that one of the things that Jesus tried to get across to us is "to think" and that is to think with both our mind and our heart.

If one is going to be Catholic, then you should also be catholic.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ATLMichael :

You wrote, "The "ordinary Catholic thinking" to which Mr. Stevens-Arroyo refers came from none other than Pope Benedict XVI himself when he served as the Vatican Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith."

I believe it was also when Pope Benedict XVI was serving as the Vatican Prefect when he said a Catholic should "follow his/her conscience".

You also wrote, "In the real Catholic America, we believe the Christian theology as taught by the Magisterium."

God has never chose anyone to speak for another human being so the "we" in the above sentence should be "I".

What is more important "theology" or God?

Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us, He did not say that He would send the Magisterium to guide us.

There are many things that can be a help but ultimately we are asked to "Follow Jesus" "Guided by the Holy Spirit".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Here is the link to the Vatican's reasoning on Fr Haight.

http://tinyurl.com/8m5w85

The link to the previous discussion on WaPo Haight:

http://tinyurl.com/5vgj9u

Stephens-Arroyo is such a waste of time. He misleads Catholics from the teachings of the Church and substitutes for them his political leanings. He so badly wants Haigt to be correct, but Fr. Neuhaus danced circles around the false theology of Haight and Stephens-Arroyo, which was actually pretty easy to do, since it was based on solid Biblical and magesterical teaching.

In it's commentary on the censure of Haight, the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) pointed out the danger of stifling non-mainstream view points, specifically pointing out that there is a difference between theology and catechism.

KOAR1's comment seems right on the mark.

I don't know much about the people who comprise the CTSA: their credentials, their positions on other issues, their theological diversisty of viewpoints (or lack thereof), but it seems they would be in a position to comment.

If this discussion gets anywhere near as interesting as the last one concerning Haight, I am in for another less-than-fully-productive day in the office!

PS Did Haight really write "Jesus--Symbol of ___Cod__"?

(Say it's not a typo)

Re: adding Haight to No Faith

Why add another Episcopalian atheist? Aren't there already enough?

Spong, Thisthewaithe &tc. with Jon Meacham as choirmaster up in the lofts and CCNL etc. in the pews so-to-speak?

For a peer review of Father Haight's thinking, see http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3246

Father Haight would be a great addition to the On Faith panel. He is another theologian who has after careful reading and thinking concluded that Jesus was simply a human preacher man raised to deity status by P, M, M, L, and J.

Wait till Roger Haight dies before eulogizing him ! And since Father Nauhaus has just died, you should certainly show more christian charity on his part.

I don't think Neuhaus was a specialist in Haight's work. It doesn't matter anyways and otherwise seems irrelevant to the topic of his own theological writings.

Arroyo, do you believe in the divinity of Jesus-Christ, per the Nicene Creed ? Roger Haight taught that Jesus was merely a ''prophet'' and ''savior figure'', much like what is said about Muhammad in islam.

This is most definitely a heresy, a damnable one at that, which is often called ''Arianism'', ''Gnosticism'' and ''Nominalism''.

To the extent that both Latino and European churches believe in the divinity of Jesus-Christ, per the creed, your comment about ''cultural catholicism'' is also somewhat impertinent and smacks cultural relativism.

Neuhas was a rightwing a....hole. Haight I don't know but Jesuits are good at justifying anything. At least Neuhaus was honest in defending the indefensible church of Rome. The Jesuit in playing games with it was less honest I suspect.

ATLMichael, your rigid understanding of what constitutes magisterial teaching and possibility of raising questions, let alone dissent, would have Catholics still espousing a belief that the planet Earth is flat. We are blessed to have a vibrant theological community, within which there is much debate, as "-ology" means the study of... If we understood it all, we wouldn't need to study God and we wouldn't be very faithful (faith requires mystery/unknown). History is littered with people who were excommunicated and then (posthumously) declared in good standing as the CHURCH came around, not the individual (see above).

Once again, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo proves himself to be a closet Protestant. The "ordinary Catholic thinking" to which Mr. Stevens-Arroyo refers came from none other than Pope Benedict XVI himself when he served as the Vatican Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

I certainly respect the right of Protestant scholars and theologians to express their views, even though I may not agree with them. But what truly saddens me is Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's pernicious insistence on espousing Protestant dogma through an organization that he blatantly misrepresents as being "Catholic America."

In the real Catholic America, we believe the Christian theology as taught by the Magisterium.

Last week, I was shocked and saddened to hear of Fr. Neuhaus's death. I've been a subscriber to *First Things* for a few years now and though it is touted (and sometimes reviled) as a conservative journal, there is much in it for a moderate liberal like me to read, enjoy, and ponder. Some of the best work in the journal was written by Fr. Neuhaus in "The Public Square". I did not always agree with his point-of-view, but I always admired his erudition and his ability to write.

May he rest in peace...