Comments

1. Ann Olivier 03/29/2011 - 2:46 pm  subscriber

   The Magister articles bring welcome news. If the Court hadn’t happened, would the agnostic Jean Luc Ferry (a big deal in intellectual Paris) have called Cardinal Ravasi for an appointment to talk about St. John? All around it seems to have been a “who-knew” event.

   When the Chicago event happens I hope both sides will start a joint initiative to counter American anti-intellectualism. Surely both sides could easily make common cause against fundamentlism of all sorts.

2. Nancy Danielson 03/29/2011 - 7:29 pm

   Ann, one would think that a book about The Gospel of John according to an agnostic, would be an oxymoron to begin with.

3. Mary 03/29/2011 - 7:35 pm

   Aw gosh, you don’t mean to imply only Christian believers can competently write about the New Testament, do you?

4. Ann Olivier 03/29/2011 - 8:10 pm  subscriber

   Nancy –

   You are a true miracle of a closed mind. How do you think many converts begin their conversion if not by reading the Gospels? And when they read them do you think they can see NOTHING of what the Gospels mean? And have you never read of the good non-believers who accept the teaching of Jesus as the most exalted of ethical systems? And are you aware that some nonbelievers condemned slavery, etc., even before the Church did — in other words, they were better Christians than some of the believers? Where does it say that to believe is to be holy? I’ve known lots of believers who weren’t holy, including me.

   Why do you think that anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100% is evil through and through? Where is that said or implied in any of the Gospels?

5. Nancy Danielson 03/29/2011 - 10:10 pm

   Yikes! It sounds as if you do not believe that “an authentic interpretation of Scripture must be conducted with the mind of The Church.”

   I think that quote came from Dei Verbum, but I may be mistaken.

6. Ann Olivier 03/29/2011 - 11:12 pm  subscriber

   Nancy –

   Do you realize how ambiguous “the mind of the Church” is? Almost every word there can have more than one meaning. For instance, “the” mind — what makes you think that there is only one mind within the reality which is the Church? Indeed, “the Church” itself can have many different — and valuable meanings — in different contexts.

   Just whose one single mind are you speaking of when you say “the” mind of the Church? (You used the phrase, so you must have some meaning for it.)

7. Nancy Danielson 03/30/2011 - 1:46 pm

   Ann, perhaps this may help:

   http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharist/mir/magisterium.htm

8. Nancy Danielson 03/30/2011 - 1:57 pm

   That should read:

   http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/magisterium.htm

9. Ann Olivier 03/30/2011 - 2:05 pm  subscriber

   Nancy –

   I’m asking what YOU think, not what some stranger thinks. Surely you know what YOU think and what the reasons you have for your opinions are. And please don’t just give me some general statement like, “I agree with what the Church teaches”. The Church has taught lots of different things, and I want to know which teachings appeal to you and why. Yes, I know you’re partial to the teachings of JP II, but he’s not always consistent either.

   So what do YOU think?

10. Nancy Danielson 03/30/2011 - 3:04 pm

    The Magisterium, through the guidance of The Holy Spirit, exists to ensure that what Christ Has Revealed to His Church through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture remains consistent.

11. Ann Olivier 03/30/2011 - 5:39 pm  subscriber

    But, Nancy, the fact is that “the Magisterium” (if by that you mean the official, promulgated teachings from Rome) have not all been consistent. See the early and later teachings on the Jews as Christ-killers, on non-Catholics as going to Hell, and the teachings on usury and slavery.

12. Nancy Danielson 03/30/2011 - 7:02 pm

    The fact is, Cardinal Ravasi does not believe we should read Scripture in the mind of The Church. Something strange is going on at The Vatican.

13. Mary 03/30/2011 - 7:13 pm

    What evidence supports that claim, Nancy? The fact he may be willing to–gasp!–discuss a writing project with an agnostic philosopher? I’d appreciate it if you could point me to what statements he’s made that demonstrate your assertion. Thanks.

14. Ann Olivier 03/31/2011 - 12:01 am  subscriber

    Nancy –

    You haven’t answered my last question.

    And what do you mean when you say that C, Ravasi “does not read Scripture in the mind of the Church”? Are you saying he is a heretic? If so, what evidence do you have for the accusation?

15. Bob Nunz 04/05/2011 - 1:47 pm

    Oy vey!
    In the meantime, see Austem Ivereigh at America “In All Things” about the meeting and its apparently man yproblems.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment