Tag Archives: Christianity

WikiIndex?

Recently I was discussing and lamenting with friends the proliferation of heretical books written by individuals calling themselves Catholic or at least purporting to have expert knowledge of the Church or Christianity in general. I read a lot and my friends read a lot. We’re inquisitive people and have at least a little ability to discern works that are in accordance with orthodox teachings and those that are not. The vast majority of people in the Church lack such a foundation and are easily lead astray by dreck by the likes of Dan Brown, Gary Wills, and John Shelby Spong.

Once upon a time, the Church maintained a list of books that Catholics ought not read, called the Index. It’s impractical in this age of mass communication for the Church to maintain such a list. However, a queriable database of books that have been given an imprimatur and/or nihil obstat would be nice. Speaking of this useful service with my friends, an idea occurred to me.

What if we created a wiki with information about popular theological books? I lack the time to set something like that up, but I’m sure someone else could do it. Somewhere in this vast blogosphere is an individual or group with the time and know-how to set up a WikiIndex. Please spread this meme if you’d like to see this idea come to fruition.

Update: I’ve discovered that the software used to create Wikipedia is open source. Woohoo!

The Posting Heard Round the World

Five hundred years before a post on a blog could have national and global impact,
Martin Luther made a primitive posting on a door. The Church has been reeling from
this event’s consequences ever since.

Recently, someone suggested to me that Luther was only asked by the pope to recant
48 of his 95 theses. Does anybody know if this is true? If so, which theses were
acceptable and which were not? I wonder how events might have played out if Luther
had chosen to be less defiant.

The Squinting Eyes of Faith

Wow. This message from a former Christian provides a lot of food for thought. It’s far too long to adequately excerpt it here, but I’ll give you this snippet to whet your appetites.

"Finding Christianity’s truth began to appear to me more like having to tilt your head and squint and stand back far enough, until you began to see how the claims of Christian apologists ‘matched’ what scant partisan evidence there is in the N.T. In the end I found myself standing back so far that I was outside the fold."

It’s well worth reading and I’d be very interested in discussing it here. After you’ve read it, please come back here and answer these questions.

Christians: Do statements like Ed’s challenge your faith? If so, how? If not, why?
Atheists/Agnostics: Do stories like Ed’s remind you of your own? Explain.

And the Wind Cried Mary

Sadly, I still haven't had time to properly respond to Ed Heckman's difficulties with the Church's beliefs concerning Mary. I did get one answer to my call for rebuttals from the peanut gallery. Here's Anonymous' defense of Marian doctrines. The opinions expressed by him/her may or may not reflect my beliefs or the beliefs of the Church.

1. Ed's first point is that Mary cannot be the most perfect example of human faithfulness because: a) she's no more faithful than Abraham; and b) she seems to have had doubts over the course of Christ's life.

In response, I would note that: a) Before God asked Abraham to be faithful, He promised Abraham a number of rewards for faithfulness. See Gen. 17. But He promised nothing to Mary directly, yet she was nevertheless willing to do his will. See Luke 1. Being faithful without knowing what the consequences will be is better than being faithful for a reward.

And b) the doubts that Mary had were not, as Ed claims, evidence of a weak faith; they were tests of faith that Mary passed. Simeon warned Mary that "you yourself a sword will pierce," Luke 2:35, and his prophecy came true in each of the instances Ed cites. See this.

2. Ed's second point is that Mary cannot rightly be considered a sinless "New Eve" because: a) she calls God her Savior in Luke 1, and the sinless do not need a savior; and b) there is no explicit scriptural support for Mary as a sinless "New Eve."

In response, I would note that: a) you can "save" people in two ways: getting them out of trouble, or keeping them from getting into it in the first place. Knocking someone out of the path of a speeding car saves that person just as much as providing medical care in the event that he is hit. God saved Mary from sin by keeping her from it; he saves us from sin by getting us out of it.

And b) Ed is right that there is no explicit scriptural support for calling Mary a sinless "New Eve." But this is not a problem for Catholics, who don't demand explicit scriptural support in the way that Protestants do. Catholics believe that the Church came before the Bible in that it preached before the Bible was written, and it chose the Books that were to become part of the Bible (choosing the synoptic Gospels over the gnostic ones, etc.). For this reason, the Church can proclaim a doctrine without explicit scripural support, for the Bible is a creature of the Church, and not the other way round.

It seems Jay is having similar discussions at Deo Omnis Gloria.

Linguistic Issues Regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary [regarding Jesus' "brothers"]
Linguistic Issues Regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Part II [regarding Joseph not knowing Mary "until" Jesus' birth]

Carnivals 02/18/05

I’m a little late posting this, but here’s this week’s carnival roundup.

The
57th Christian Carnival is up at Wittenburg Gate
. Vox
Apologia 5 is also at WG
. The theme is “Three Governments: Family, Civil,
and Church”. The
17th Catholic Carnival is up at Living Catholicism
. The post hoc theme is “Spiritual
Nourishment During Lent”.