All Comments (43)

I don't think he has a "pretty wingie talking thingie" because they don't actually exist...

I believe essentially, that the Revelation of God is in Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ, and that is about all I take from Barthian theology. This isn't to say that any other religion is particularly evil - it is to say that Jesus showed us exactly how civilization, society, politics and religion should function.

Allan.

Bill L,

Just name your "pretty wingie talking thingie" and we will go from there.

You're still dodging!

Bill L,

And when did God give you the Truth? Maybe He sent a "pretty wingie talking thingie" to deliver the Truth of it all??

Hmmm, lets see-

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

And Bill L had his ??????

You're dodging! I'm talking about God's true teaching and his ability to defend his own truth.

Bill L,

God protecting us from unholy influences? Like the pedophile priests? Like Protestants? Like Mohammad, Like Buddha, Like Hitler, Like Pol Pot?

God's gifts of Free Will and Future make any kind of godly protection null and void.

Concerned, are you saying that God can't protect his Church from unholy influences?

AMP,

The ITC report that Concerned and I have been talking about doesn't say that unbaptized infants ARE going to heaven. It says that there are reasons to hope. In fact, the Commission's report even says:

"We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge" (para. 102).

AMP,

The ITC report that Concerned and I have been talking about doesn't say that unbaptized infants ARE going to heaven. It says that there are reasons to hope. In fact, the Commission's report even says:

"We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge."

I am glad that religious thinkers are all agreeing that infants are pure and will get into heaven. I think the point is not who said it, or when they said it, but what is actually true.

Bill L,

I believe in God's gifts of Reason, Free Will and Future. Professors Crossan, McBrien et al use these same gifts to put reality back into our Catholic religion which had been hijacked by well-meaning, embellishing scribes and profiteering leaders like Constantine, the Holy Roman "Empirers", and the aristocrats of Europe.

You're missing my point! Regardless of his education, if he teaches opposing teachings of the Church, he is in heresy. I am not making a judgement on his soul, only his opposition to the Church. You don't need to be a microbiologist to know dead fish stink.
Read his reviews from Bishops. Why he hasn't been repremanded or had his theology credentials revoked like Hans Kung and others, I don't know.
As far as the dig at my teaching credentials, which are minimal, it's funny that you're own supposed religious expertize is being flaunted in every post you write, yet you're a non-believer!

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

You wrote to Bill, "And your bio is I assume as equally impressive since you have passed judgement on said Father McBrien?"

Actually, Concerned, having an impressive bio doesn't automatically mean that Father McBrien is above reproach, or that someone like Bill cannot express his opinion concerning him. Nor does it mean that Father McBrien can only be judged by someone who has equal or more degrees than he does. A person can be wrong on something no matter how many degrees they may have.

Bill L,

Father McBrien's Resume' from the Notre Dame web page:

Father Richard McBrien

"Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Roman Catholic Theology
Department of Theology

Degrees
A.A., St. Thomas Seminary, Bloomfield, Connecticut; B.A., M.A., St. John Seminary, Brighton, Massachusetts; S.T.L., S.T.D., Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome

Research Profile
McBrien's scholarly interests are in the areas of ecclesiology, religion and politics, and the theological, doctrinal, and spiritual dimensions of Catholicism. The first is reflected in almost all of his writings, including: Do We Need the Church? (1969), Church: The Continuing Quest (1970), and The Remaking of the Church (1973); the second in his Caesar's Coin: Religion and Politics in America (1987); and the third in Catholicism (1980; rev. ed., 1994), Lives of the Popes (1997), and Lives of the Saints (2001), as well as The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (1995), of which he was general editor. He has been president of the Catholic Theological Society of America (1973-74) and winner of its John Courtney Murray Award "for outstanding and distinguished achievement in Theology" (1976). He has written a syndicated weekly theology column for the Catholic press since 1966, and is a frequent on-air network commentator for Church-related events.

Contact Information
281 Decio Faculty Hall
631-5151
rmcbrien@nd.edu
richardmcbrien.com"

And your bio is I assume as equally impressive since you have passed judgement on said Father McBrien?

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

> Fortunately the CC is not official church doctrine.

But once again, my point still stands that the ITC's report doesn't teach something new, or something that hasn't been taught before. It says that same thing that the Catechism has taught for years concerning unbaptized infants, which is that we can have hope that there is a way for their salvation.

It was the media who took the ITC's report, and said that the Catholic Church was now saying something new or novel concerning the salvation of unbaptized infants. That just isn't the case at all.

Concerned, theologians and professors do not make doctrine in the Catholic Church! The Pope and the Magesterium in unison with him state doctrine.
BTW, McBride of N.D. is as bad if not worse the Crossan in betraying their "faith".

See http://astro.temple.edu/~arcc/rights11.htm with respect to the CC and Catholic Church doctrine.

Matt W,

Fortunately the CC is not official church doctrine.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

I can't speak for Catholic theologians/university professors. You will have to ask them for yourself.

But my point still stands that the ITC report didn't change anything that the Catholic Church didn't already teach. The ITC report states that we can have hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved, which is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has already been saying now for years (CCC, 1261).

Matt W,

And why do Catholic theologians/university professors disagree with you? But then again, some still believe in talking snakes, magic gardens, trees of knowledge, "pretty wingie thingies, the demons of the demented and fortune tellers.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

> Strange that the Vatican and our Archdiocese did not counter the media's running with the story.

LOL! If the Vatican tried to counter every single time the media misrepresented Catholic teaching, it wouldn't have time to do anything else. ;-)

> So I will assume Ghandi's soul along with the other billion good souls of dead non-baptized persons to include unbaptized babies are probably or maybe or hopefully or through God's goodness or based on serious grounds, are now in Heaven.

Actually, the ITC's report was on the issue of unbaptized infants, who, of course, are not guilty of any personal sin, nor have they been given the opportunity to willfully reject the grace of God. Ghandi wouldn't fall into that category.

Matt W,

Strange that the Vatican and our Archdiocese did not counter the media's running with the story.

So I will assume Ghandi's soul along with the other billion good souls of dead non-baptized persons to include unbaptized babies are probably or maybe or hopefully or through God's goodness or based on serious grounds, are now in Heaven.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

> If indeed there was nothing new in the Theological Commission's report, why publish like it was some big "revelation".

The Catholic Church didn't publish it as if it was some big revelation. It was the mainstream media that took the report, ran with it, and made it into something a lot more than what it was.

Matt W,

If indeed there was nothing new in the Theological Commission's report, why publish like it was some big "revelation". The report is typical "Vatican Speak" to CYAP the concept of original sin i.e. our Church's "lock" on the gates of Heaven. What nonsense and lack of clarity and so typical of our Church's old white male, "celibate" hierarchy.

You might want to read the "take" by the various news organizations about "limbo".

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3060955

and http://wcco.com/goodquestion/local_story_113213401.html

An excerpt:

"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.

"Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church," he said in an e-mailed response."

And what is being taught in Theology classes at large Catholic universities?? (e.g. Catholic U)

"Yes, I teach Original Sin as symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our
families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain
patterns of sin in particular families and societies.

Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. Yes, the old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer
accepted.

Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.

Yes, but, since baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is persons volunteering to teach other people's kids the basics ofCatholicism.)"

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

Actually, International Theological Commission didn't change anything that the Catholic Church didn't already teach. The Catechism of the Catholic Church already stated that we can have hope for the salvation of children who have died without baptism:

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism" (para. 1261).

The International Theological Commission simply explored some of the theological reasons for that hope. That is all. (Also, by the way, the ITC is only an advisory group, and thus, cannot authoritatively declare anything about Catholic doctrine.)

"Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven" Mathew 16:19

Bill L,

The Singularity has no division and can exude and protect the Good Word without the CC and its ancient concepts like original sin.

And I see the soul of Ghandi as of April 20, 2007 was allowed into Heaven.

Dear Prof Crossan -

At least we know that Mozart actually did live and that he did play the violin.

BTW - what is it with you guys all citing Mozart these days? You've got to start expanding your composer examples. :)

Mr Crossan like all the heresy's of past, liberation theology along with your own "as the sands shift" theology will pass and the Catholic Church with its catechism will still be because she is protected by the Holy Spirit of God. So who do you find yourself fighting against?

anonymous, don't challenge Catholics in any way.
speed123 will have the Mother Superior whack your knuckles with a ruler.

anonymous, don't challenge speed123's blind defense of Catholics. He may have the Mother Superior whack your knuckles with a ruler.

Dr. Crossan:

I've enjoyed your writings over the years although I don't really have the background to understand all of what you put forth.

It does seem that the Jesus that is portrayed in the Gospels does have change on his mind or at least reform. Perhaps he was thinking bigger than social justice though.

The Jewish Elders had many traditions such as ritual washings and purification ceremonies that were aimed at portraying Gentiles and lapsed Jews as impure. Jesus refused to participate in these.

While it did nothing to change things in Judea, it does seem to have set the stage for a Pauline Christianity dominated by Gentiles which is really what the Church is today.

Perhaps in pursuing God's justice, "social justice" was done as well.

The basic problem with Christianity is not only that it is a hoax but also that it is a SADO-MASOCHSTIC hoax. It is a severe form of mental illness.

Nope, anonymous, I am just defending Catholics.

Do you get a free pass to hate them?

speed123: We get it. You hate Jews.

Professor Crossan,

Danke Schoen for the response above and even a bigger Thankyou for your efforts to put reality back into Catholicism specifically and Christianity in general in your 20 plus books on various aspects of the NT.

I have a good professor friend who teaches Theology at a major Catholic university. The professor teaches exactly what you have concluded from attestations and stratum comparisons but from a different viewpoint with respect to the physical Resurrection, Ascension and Assumption.

From the professor:

"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.

Christ 's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

And any thoughts you might have on the recent "wishy wash" deletion of limbo by the Vatican's International Theological Commission would be greatly appreciated. To me, it appears they used a lot of "theology speak" to hide the fact that if limbo goes so goes original sin and therefore the Catholic Church will no longer hold the keys to Heaven i.e. as of April 20, 2007, Ghandi's soul finally entered Heaven along with a billion other good but unbaptized souls.

Crossan and Borg are peddling a liberal form of Christianity. They haven't the balls to admit that Christianity is an evil, sado-masochstic superstition.

PS - Interesting how Crossan focuses on Rome rather than the Pharisees and corrupt Jew kings that Jesus spoke against.

Trying to shift blame onto a fashionable cause of the day: that of imperialism? Or just trying reinforce your distain for Rome?

It was not the Parisees who washed their hands...

Crossan states: "Jesus, like all those other magnificent Jewish prophets before him, did not live and die for social justice but for divine justice."

Pope John Paul II states: “This conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth, does not tally with the church.."

These two statements are identical in substance...

It seems that Crossan's own personal bias against the Catholic Church may be the "problem" of this piece.

This guy is a blowhard.

Thanks for that correction, Concerned. In my post I have changed Matt 5:28 to Matt 5:48 (moral: don't trust your memory over 70). I do not think Jesus created the "Our Father" as a set prayer and trained his followers in its explicit use because: (1) of the divergent versions in Matthew, Luke, & the Didache; (2) other Christians do not seem to know it--Paul. for example. But I have always thought that it is as accurate and faithful a summary of what Jesus stood for (better: kneeled for) as is possible--then or now.
Also, with that crucial admonition to "be like God" in Q/Matt 5:48=Luke 6:36 (see Leviticus 19:2b) as the model for non-violence, I do not think either of those twin versions tells us what Jesus said--although Matthew seems more likely than Luke.
As in many other cases, I think a saying or event in the gospels may not be historical in the sense that it actually & factually happened but may very often express an accurate summary or synthesis of what Jesus said or did. My aphorism for that situation was, as you may recall: "Emmaus never happened, Emmaus always happens."

Professor Crossan,

I am confused. In your book, The Historical Jesus, p. 293, you concluded that Jesus did not say the Our Father. Above, however, you indicate that he did. Please elaborate.

I am also assuming Matt 5:28 should be Matt 5:48 which is equivalent to Luke 6:36. In your book, The Historical Jesus, you also gave this passage a negative rating but indicate a positive rating above. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb141.html

Dear Prof. Crossan,

Your remarks on television shows are always enlightening. It is nice to see that your written expressions are equally so.

Sincerely,

Paul Halbach
Agawam, MA