Is Bernard Lonergan more influened by his Louvain heritage than by Aquinas historically understood?
455247
I've only been through "Insight" once, and read the "Verbum" articles years ago, so somebody might have a more detailed answer. \n\nLonergan does seem to have a Kantian agenda, though he doesn't directly engage Kant. The Kantian question is: by what right do we make metaphysical statements, such as "God exists." Lonergan argues by describing the process by which we makes true statements, though not in the same manner as Kant. His approach is more empirically oriented, looking at everyday experiencing and judging (whereas Kant was interested in the validity of those judgments necessary for Newtonian physics). From this basis, he argues that metaphysical judgments are possible; thus we can give an argument that God exists. \n\nIs this a faithful extension of Aquinas? Leaving aside whether or not Aquinas was interested in proving the existence of God in the modern sense, I would say yes. In fact, much of "Insight" sounds to me like a standard neo-scholastic epistemology manual. It's questionable whether his "turn to the subject" is a move Aquinas would have made, but I don't see that there's a contradiction between being a response to modern concerns and being a faithful extension of Aquinas.
7894
This question comes from the Middle Ages. The great St Thomas Aquinas and other philosophers supposedly argued about this. \nAngels are pure spirit. They have no bodies. This being so I guess they all do.
863409
"Where did his ancestors come from?" would have been a better way of asking it. I believe he is of Irish decent.
1092611
Can't find a reference to such a person.\n\nThe Jesuits normally have a brother Xavier in their ranks. Maybe one of them did some digging.\n\nThe Chinese paleontologists mentioned at dinodata are pretty recent.
564604
Different protestant churches may have different views on biblical topics from each other and from the Catholic Church. One of the main things about the Catholic Church is that they put their church tradition at a higher place than the Bible. This is a very dangerous thing to do because it allows the church to hold views that even go plainly against the Bible. Example: if you read 1 Tim 4:1-5 you will read in the Bible (even the Catholic Bible) that men who forbid people to marry are following a doctrine of demons. The Catholic church disregards the Bible there and insists on promoting a doctrine that is not from God. The rampant homosexuality in the priesthood is a by-product of following that demonic teaching. Being single is actualy better for those who want to be more devoted to the Lord but that should never be forced on anyone. \n\nAnother area where there is great danger, is where the Catholic church makes a Pope to be in charge of the church. He is actually called the vicar of Christ which means that he is the representative of Christ here on earth. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the head of the church and the believers are His body. A Pope is said to be able to speak "excathedera" (I think I mispelled it) which means that when he speaks on matters of doctrine and faith, he is "infallible" Obviously throughout the Catolic Church's history it has been wrong in many of its actions and beliefs as in the example I already gave. \n\nProtestants may have differing views but rarely are they as serious as undermining the scriptures and worshiping a man as supreme leader of the church.    \n\nYour average catholic does not know much of the Catholic official teachings which include "transubstantiation", progatory, outright idolatry, not beliving that Jesus died once for all sins as evidenced in the sacrifice of the "Mass", not being able to clain assurance of salvation (one of the worst beliefs of all), adding several books to the old testament about 1500 yrs after the fact to try to defend some of their unbiblical beliefs and the sale of indulgences ect.....Today when I meet a catholic who is open to the Bible, I don't try to bring up most of the above. I try to talk about having a personal relation with Christ and knowing that to get to heaven is a choice that depends on one's own decision not belonging to such and such a church.
853865
The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself. \nSir Richard Francis Burton (1821 - 1890)
118746
Um, no that would be a pretty ridiculous reduction of the grand theologies of Aquinas, Augustine, and Athanasius.\n\nI'll only deal with one of these ridiculous items - the first.  \n\n"An almighty God decided he was either bored or lonely so he creates a universe of immense size..."\n\nThe Christian sense of cosmology was first expressed by Augustine in Book 11 of Confessions, essentially agreeing with modern scientific cosmology that time is a physical property of the universe, and has no applicability beyond it. \n\nThat is why the Nicene creed speaks of Christ as "eternally begotten" - since God is not passing through time, or even really old (also a temporal concept), his actions aren't really the result of "getting bored" or anything temporal like that. The anthropomorphisms of that kind may abound in scripture, but only because of our limited ability to conceive of literal timelessness.\n\nSince you basically blew the first premise, the rest, which reside on them, fail. So I'll leave it alone (other than to snicker a little at "whose purpose is to make him feel better" - I can't decide whether that is banal or actually funny. :-)
21274
Primarily it is Protestant catholic bashers who believe this, though there is a tradition of this belief in the Greek Orthodox church.  A fameous, scandalous telling of the tale (titled "Pope Joan") was translated to English by Lawrence Durrell, who, as an author, excelled in scandalous tales of incest, etc.  \n\nThe tale persists without historical backup because anything that raises doubt about the validity of apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic church will delight someone who dislikes the RC church.\n\nOne of the reasons for believing it's probably not true is that the allegation of the event doesn't appear in the historical record until 4-500 years after it allegedly occurred.  It's hard to believe that a 'pope' giving birth during a procession would have gone unremarked for hundreds of years, and then conveniently been noticed along with the development of Protestantism.\n\nI'm not a Catholic myself, just someone who hates to see religious prejudice rear its ugly head in our world.
377617
Apparently so. The question is how much it influenced him.\nMaybe his views on alternaltive life styles would have been\nmore liberal and open-minded, if it wasn't for the brainwashing the pope suffered from the vile organisation mentioned above.
1157975
Answered Separately\n\nTHE TRINITY\nThe whole first 800 years of Christianity was spent upholding, finessing, and strengthening the dogma of the Trinity.  It one of if not the the primary battle that Christians faced theologically.  All major disputes are only part of the larger context surrounding this belief.\n\n"Victor ious" above is not a student of history.  (sorry to do this to you but you are so off the mark historically that it is unbelievable)\n\nThe doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in \n\nMatthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." \n\n(Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).  After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" \n\nAnd throughout the writings of the Eastern and Western Fathers.\n\n"Victor ious" is thus incorrect to say that Tertullian formulated the concept (however Tertullian is the first known to use the word trinity to encapsulate the previously held belief).  "Victor ious" must not have read Tertullian because if he did, he would know that Tertullian is not regarded by Catholics as a shining example of belief in the Trinity.  Tertullian died a Montanist, a heretic.  Montanists held the belief that the Trinity consisted of only a single person, similar to Sabellianism, as opposed to the orthodox view that the Trinity is one God of three persons.  Montanists are similar (but still wildly different) in their views to charismatic "oneness" Pentecostals, in regards to their understanding of charismas and the denial of the Trinity.\n\n"Victor ious" is also wrong in saying that Rome adopted belief in the Trinity after Tertullian.  St. Pope Clement c.a. 80 AD wrote "Do we not have one God, one Christ, and one Spirit poured out upon us?"  This is a clear belief in the understanding of a Triune God (One God in Three Persons) that would later become expressed in more nuanced terms.\n\nBelief in the Trinity, and a subsequent Trinitarian baptism has been held from the beginning by both the East and the West as THE DEFINITION OF WHAT MAKES A CHRISTIAN A CHRISTIAN.\n\nA person might not believe in the Trinity, but then they cannot be a Christian.  The whole first 800 years of Christianity was spent upholding, finessing, and strengthening the dogma of the Trinity.  It is the primary battle that Christians faced theologically.\n----------------------------\nTHE RAPTURE\n\nThere is no rapture. What is meant by the term in modern times is a lie and it comes out of the works of a 19th century American named John Darby (look him up and you will find that he was into occult practices). The doctrine of a secret rapture was first conceived by John Darby of the Plymouth Brethren in 1827 It has nothing to do with how Paul and his followers understood what he wrote. Even a loose understanding of "rapture" is virtually unheard of in the writings of the Church Fathers. \n\nIf the tribulation comes during our life times, the idea of the rapture is going to have many Christians turn away and apostatize. Christians will suffer greatly before the end, and if you think you are going to get raptured, but end up suffering, you will assume that Christianity is wrong. \n\nthe book "The Rapture Trap" among many many others.
383497
Yes, and the popes nationality should have reflected the majority of parishoners this time around, or where catholicism is really growing...that was a dissapointment...\n\nI grew up catholic...agnostic now...
936187
I read about a third and stopped.  Dr. Bock is a competent writer but it's very old ground that's been plowed over for two hundred years and he's added absolutely nothing new with one more traditionalist book for the laity. \n\nI think you can pretty much sum up the psuedepigrapha with one admittedly subjective distinction: the non-canonical material is even sillier than the material that made it in, and it doesn't take more than a long magazine article to explain what it is and why it's not canonicial.
325658
Well, he wasn't a lunatic.\n\nWas he a genius?  His Origin of the Species was definitely revolutionary and is relevant to this day.\n\nI suspect that you may be a "strict creationist," however, which poses another question.\n\nAre you a lunatic?  (You aren't a genius.)
1081791
I'm catholic, and I don't believe that there is only one answer for everything.\n\nAssuming you're speaking about Catholic dogma - not everything the church teaches is considered "dogma":  only those items which are utterly critical to our faith (one god, jesus is his son, etc.)\n\nwhen you get to the idea of (for example) salvation though good work vs. through faith, you're completely out of he realm of dogma, although it was one of the critical points in he early division of protestants vs. catholics.\n\nMost of the overlap between Protestants and R. Catholics is not dogma. \n\nAnd, there are other churches who are not protestant, but who aren't Roman Catholic either (specifially the Orthodox churches).
1152666
Well since "original sin" is nothing but a translation error, it's silly to hold anyone to such a farce.\nYou see in the greek bible, "all are born without sin". But when St Anselm was doing the translation, his Latin was much better than his Greek and the Latin word for "with" is very close to the Greek word for "without".\nSo, because someone did'nt do thier homework, original sin was born. Fun huh?
281534
Voltaire's philosophy was based on skepticism and rationality, which leads me to believe that he didn't really lean one way or the other. He probably would be more of the philosophy that men do good things and bad things, thus being skeptical of both the naturally good and the naturally evil philosophies. Check out the link below and see if that helps.
1112460
According to Catholic Online, there is a St. Montanus.