DOCSLIB.ORG

REPLACING ORIGINAL SIN with PRAYERFUL HOPE AS CATHOLIC THEOLOGY's RESPONSE to the PROBLEM of EVIL a Thesis Submitted to The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REPLACING ORIGINAL SIN with PRAYERFUL HOPE AS CATHOLIC THEOLOGY's RESPONSE to the PROBLEM of EVIL a Thesis Submitted to The REPLACING ORIGINAL SIN WITH PRAYERFUL HOPE AS CATHOLIC THEOLOGY'S RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM OF EVIL A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of The School of Continuing Studies and of The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Liberal Studies By Adav Noti, J.D. Georgetown University Washington, DC December 1, 2008 REPLACING ORIGINAL SIN WITH PRAYERFUL HOPE AS CATHOLIC THEOLOGY'S RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM OF EVIL Adav Noti, J.D. Mentor: Chester Gillis, Ph.D. ABSTRACT The theological problem of evil poses a substantial challenge to all monotheistic faith traditions. In Roman Catholic theology, the primary response to the problem of evil is the doctrine of original sin. According to this doctrine, human suffering is attributable to a putatively historical event: The first people, Adam and Eve, introduced disorder into creation by disobeying a divine command. This disorder transformed human existence from a state of “original justice,” in which humanity experienced neither death nor suffering, to a state of original sin, in which each person is inclined toward sinful activity and vulnerable to harm. The state of original sin is transmitted from parent to child at conception, and, although baptism erases the metaphysical taint of Adam and Eve’s deed, the concrete effects of original sin are permanent, subjecting each person to a lifetime of moral error, physical hardship, and certain death. In the thesis that follows, I demonstrate that the doctrine of original sin is theologically deficient, that it conflicts with other Church teachings, and that it inflicts harm on both the faith community and the Church itself. As a result, I argue that the Church should cease employing original sin in response to the problem of evil. In place of original sin, I propose adopting a theological concept that I entitle “prayerful hope.” ii This concept — which is derived from the Church’s recent reanalysis of the doctrine of limbo — argues that those who suffer should challenge God through prayer to end their suffering, and the Church should explain to the faithful that there is good reason to believe that such prayers will be answered. I demonstrate that this teaching would correct the theological errors that pervade the doctrine of original sin, would be consistent with all major Church doctrines, and would take a significant step toward ameliorating the damage that original sin has wreaked on the Church and its followers. I conclude by demonstrating that the Church could replace original sin with prayerful hope at little cost to the Church’s magisterial authority, and I recommend a specific procedure for effecting this long overdue theological change. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My deepest appreciation to Dean Chester Gillis for his expertise, for his encouragement, and for the time and effort he devoted to substantially improving this thesis. My heartfelt thanks also to Professor Tod Linafelt, who opened my eyes to the possibilities of the Book of Job, and to Professor Mike Duggan, who helped narrow the scope of my examination from impossible to merely unmanageable. I am truly grateful to Bob Parker, David Kolker, and Kevin Deeley for allowing me to keep my day job while I theologized by night. And I cannot thank Adrienne Lockie enough for serving as a constant reminder that there is infinitely more to the human condition than the experience of evils: O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere redemptorem . This thesis is dedicated to those who suffer. iv CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER ONE. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL .............................................................. 6 A. The Problem of Evil Defined ........................................................................ 6 B. Characteristics of God ................................................................................ 10 C. Evil Defined ................................................................................................ 14 CHAPTER TWO. THE CHURCH’S RESPONSE: ORIGINAL SIN ....................... 25 CHAPTER THREE. FLAWS IN THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN ................ 38 A. Acknowledged Doctrinal Deficiencies ....................................................... 39 B. Additional Doctrinal Deficiencies .............................................................. 49 C. Conflicts With Other Church Doctrines ..................................................... 54 D. Harms Caused by the Original Sin Doctrine .............................................. 66 CHAPTER FOUR. THE NEW DOCTRINE: PRAYERFUL HOPE ........................ 84 A. The Hope of Salvation ................................................................................ 85 B. Applying Prayerful Hope to the Problem of Evil ....................................... 91 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 102 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 106 v INTRODUCTION The inability to understand “original sin” and to make it understandable is really one of the most difficult problems of present-day theology and pastoral ministry. — Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report “The problem of evil” is an unfortunate euphemism, a misnomer with a long history of unhappy effects. The name suggests a dilemma to be resolved or a conflict to be settled. The problem of evil, however, is not a dilemma, but a paradox: It is the irreconcilable contradiction between the simultaneous existence of earthly suffering and an omnipotent, benevolent deity. As such, it resides at the core of human self- contemplation, inextricably intertwined with the ultimate questions of our creation, existence, and death. The problem of evil is the great puzzle of theology, and it has been studied for so long and with such fervent intensity that scholars’ continuing ability to produce new thoughts on the subject is, perhaps above all else, a striking testament to human ingenuity. Many analyses of the problem of evil, however, are of dubious practicality. A great many of them are devoted simply to rehashing traditional arguments — theodicies that have remained essentially unchanged for centuries. There is, by now, little more to be said in their defense. Anti-religionist critiques do not fare any better; using the problem of evil to highlight certain logical flaws in the dogmas of Christianity and other monotheistic faith traditions is a well-worn path. Though the sheer quantity 1 of material on each side of this ancient and unsolvable debate is staggering, 1 the ideas therein have grown stagnant. In recent years, however, two movements have arisen in the study of the problem of evil, each with the potential to generate genuinely new and practical approaches to the issue. The first movement comprises those who examine the problem of evil in light of developments in non-theological fields, such as biology or physics. 2 While this would be an unremarkable development in many academic areas — where external developments have been incorporated, to varying degrees, for decades or centuries — the analysis of the problem of evil had proven largely resistant to such efforts. This resistance seems now to have weakened, and important, relevant schools of thought that theodicists have long neglected are finally being brought to bear on the problem. The second movement — perhaps too small as yet to warrant that term — takes a substantially different approach. These scholars have suggested that the entire endeavor of theodicy should be abandoned, not simply because the problem of evil cannot be solved, but also because the development, propagation, and substance of 1. One bibliography of writings regarding the problem of evil contains 4,237 references, which averages to roughly three new works per week, every week, for thirty years. Barry L. Whitney, Theodicy: An Annotated Bibliography on the Problem of Evil, 1960-1990 (New York: Garland, 1993). 2. Examples include Daryl P. Domning and Monika K. Hellwig, Original Selfishness: Original Sin and Evil in the Light of Evolution (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006); Nancey Murphy, Robert John Russell, and William R. Stoeger, eds., Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil (Vatican: Vatican Observatory, 2007). 2 theodicies themselves have negative effects on the faith community. 3 In other words, they argue that the solution does more harm that the problem. In the thesis that follows, I seek primarily to add to the latter category of scholarship. Specifically, I examine the doctrine of original sin, which is the Roman Catholic Church’s primary theological response to the problem of evil. I argue that original sin, although it is a teaching of ancient pedigree and longstanding tradition, is irredeemably false, harmful to the faith of Catholics worldwide, and damaging to the Church itself. It relies on obsolete interpretations of scripture, conflicts with numerous other Church doctrines, is infused with centuries of misogyny, and seriously calls into question the authority and infallibility of the Church’s dogmatic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Scholarships and Special Funds 1 Scholarships and Special Funds
    Scholarships and Special Funds 1 Scholarships and Special Funds An asterisk (*) indicates a scholarship or special fund that was transferred by Andover Newton Theological School (now Andover Newton Seminary at Yale Divinity School) in 2019. Scholarships The Bradford E. Ableson Scholarship was established in 2008 by Julia Ableson to honor her husband, the Rev. Dr. Bradford Edward Ableson, M.Div. 1985. The scholarship is awarded annually with a preference for students who are postulants or candidates for Holy Orders of the Episcopal Church and demonstrate superior promise for pastoral ministry. The Harry Baker Adams Scholarship was created in 1993 by a gi from Frank P. Wendt, charter member and chairman emeritus of the Yale Divinity School Board of Advisors. The scholarship has since been augmented by numerous gis from other friends, students, and admirers of Professor Harry B. Adams, B.A. 1947, B.D. 1951, who has touched the lives of so many who have attended the School. The purpose of the scholarship is to attract “the brightest and the best.” The Rev. Dr. Marilyn McCord Adams Scholarship Fund was established in 2020 by the Rev. Christopher T. Worthley, M.Div. 2002, and Christian M. Clough, M.A.R. 2003, for the benefit of deserving students affiliated with Berkeley Divinity School at Yale. *The Rev. Dr. Paul R. Adkins Scholarship is awarded with a preference toward United Church of Christ students and students in the Andover Newton Seminary program. The African Methodist Episcopal Church Scholarship was established in 2007 by Bishop Frederick Hilborn Talbot, M.Div. 1957, and his friends and family to honor him for receiving the YDS “Lux et Veritas” Alumni Award.
    [Show full text]
  • Sin. Systematic Theology.Wayne Grudem
    Systematic Theology Wayne Grudem Chapter 24! SIN What is sin? Where did it come from? Do we inherit a sinful nature from Adam? Do we inherit guilt from Adam? EXPLANATION AND SCRIPTURAL BASIS A. The Definition of Sin The history of the human race as presented in Scripture is primarily a history of man in a state of sin and rebellion against God and of God’s plan of redemption to bring man back to himself. Therefore, it is appropriate now to consider the nature of the sin that separates man from God. We may define sin as follows: Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. Sin is here defined in relation to God and his moral law. Sin includes not only individual acts such as stealing or lying or committing murder, but also attitudes that are contrary to the attitudes God requires of us. We see this already in the Ten Commandments, which not only prohibit sinful actions but also wrong attitudes: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Ex. 20:17 NIV). Here God specifies that a desire to steal or to commit adultery is also sin in his sight. The Sermon on the Mount also prohibits sinful attitudes such as anger (Matt. 5:22) or lust (Matt. 5:28). Paul lists attitudes such as jealousy, anger, and selfishness (Gal. 5:20) as things that are works of the flesh opposed to the desires of the Spirit (Gal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2011 The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions Edward Matusek University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Scholar Commons Citation Matusek, Edward, "The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions" (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3733 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Problem of Evil in Augustine’s Confessions by Edward A. Matusek A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas Williams, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D. Charles B. Guignon, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 14, 2011 Keywords: theodicy, privation, metaphysical evil, Manichaeism, Neo-Platonism Copyright © 2011, Edward A. Matusek i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iii Chapter One: Introduction to Augustine’s Confessions and the Present Study 1 Purpose and Background of the Study 2 Literary and Historical Considerations of Confessions 4 Relevance of the Study for Various
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin
    THE GREAT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN by Jonathan Edwards “They that be whole, need not a physician; but they that are sick.” - Matthew 9:12 1 CONTENTS Advertisement 3 The Author’s Preface 7 PART ONE Wherein Are Considered Some Evidences of Original Sin From Facts and Events, as Founded by Observation and Experience, Together With Representations and Testimonies of Holy Scripture, and the Confession and Assertion of Opposers. Chapter One 8 Chapter Two 69 PART TWO Containing Observations on Particular Parts of the Holy Scripture Which Prove the Doctrine of Original Sin. Chapter One 78 Chapter Two 102 Chapter Three 110 Chapter Four 130 PART THREE The Evidence Given Us, Relative to the Doctrine of Original Sin, in What the Scriptures Reveal Concerning the Redemption by Christ. Chapter One 143 Chapter Two 148 PART FOUR Containing Answers to Objections. Chapter One 155 Chapter Two 158 Chapter Three 164 Chapter Four 177 2 ADVERTISEMENT CONTAINING A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THIS BOOK AND ITS AUTHOR, BY THE FIRST EDITOR The Reverend Author of the following piece, was removed by death before its publication. But, ere his decease, the copy was finished and brought to the press; and a number of sheets passed his own review. They who were acquainted with the author, or know his just character, and have any taste for the serious theme, will want nothing to be said in recommendation of the ensuing tract, but only that Mr. Edwards wrote it. Several valuable pieces on this subject have lately been published, upon the same side of the question.
    [Show full text]
  • A Pope of Their Own
    Magnus Lundberg A Pope of their Own El Palmar de Troya and the Palmarian Church UPPSALA STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 1 About the series Uppsala Studies in Church History is a series that is published in the Department of Theology, Uppsala University. The series includes works in both English and Swedish. The volumes are available open-access and only published in digital form. For a list of available titles, see end of the book. About the author Magnus Lundberg is Professor of Church and Mission Studies and Acting Professor of Church History at Uppsala University. He specializes in early modern and modern church and mission history with focus on colonial Latin America. Among his monographs are Mission and Ecstasy: Contemplative Women and Salvation in Colonial Spanish America and the Philippines (2015) and Church Life between the Metropolitan and the Local: Parishes, Parishioners and Parish Priests in Seventeenth-Century Mexico (2011). Personal web site: www.magnuslundberg.net Uppsala Studies in Church History 1 Magnus Lundberg A Pope of their Own El Palmar de Troya and the Palmarian Church Lundberg, Magnus. A Pope of Their Own: Palmar de Troya and the Palmarian Church. Uppsala Studies in Church History 1.Uppsala: Uppsala University, Department of Theology, 2017. ISBN 978-91-984129-0-1 Editor’s address: Uppsala University, Department of Theology, Church History, Box 511, SE-751 20 UPPSALA, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]. Contents Preface 1 1. Introduction 11 The Religio-Political Context 12 Early Apparitions at El Palmar de Troya 15 Clemente Domínguez and Manuel Alonso 19 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecclesiology of the Anglican Communion: Rediscovering the Radical and Transnational Nature of the Anglican Communion
    A (New) Ecclesiology of the Anglican Communion: Rediscovering the Radical and Transnational Nature of the Anglican Communion Guillermo René Cavieses Araya Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds Faculty of Arts School of Philosophy, Religion and History of Science February 2019 1 The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from this thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. © 2019 The University of Leeds and Guillermo René Cavieses Araya The right of Guillermo René Cavieses Araya to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by Guillermo René Cavieses Araya in accordance with the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988. 2 Acknowledgements No man is an island, and neither is his work. This thesis would not have been possible without the contribution of a lot of people, going a long way back. So, let’s start at the beginning. Mum, thank you for teaching me that it was OK for me to dream of working for a circus when I was little, so long as I first went to University to get a degree on it. Dad, thanks for teaching me the value of books and a solid right hook. To my other Dad, thank you for teaching me the virtue of patience (yes, I know, I am still working on that one).
    [Show full text]
  • John Ford Wilson UNISA Student Number
    John Ford Wilson UNISA Student Number: 4593-816-4 275 Elkins Lake Huntsville, Texas 77340 USA 1-713-202-8953 [email protected] Approved Thesis Title: Examination of the Work of John C. Polkinghorne Praeparatio Evangelii Supervisor: Professor William J. Abraham Co-supervisor: Professor Vaughn Willard Baker Date of Submission of Thesis: i Curriculum Vitae John Ford Wilson Curriculum Vitae EDUCATION Ph.D. Physics, University of Houston, Houston, Texas M.S. Physics, Drexel Institute of Technology, Philadelphia, Pa. M.S. Theological Studies, Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University M.S. Industrial Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. B.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Tennessee. EXPERIENCE Lecturer, Department of Physics, Sam Houston State University; Huntsville, Texas Member The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science Fellow, Center of Faith and Culture at University of St. Thomas; Houston, Texas Adjunct Faculty for Institute for Spirituality and Health, Houston, Texas Associate Pastor for Evangelism, St. Luke’s United Methodist Church; Houston, Texas Ordained Deacon in Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church Research Assistant Professor of Physics and Director of Educational Outreach, University of Houston; Houston, Texas Professor of Physics Houston Community College System; Houston, Texas Adjunct Professor of Physics University of St. Thomas; Houston, Texas Wilson and Associates: Self-employed as consultant in Houston, Tx. for marketing, business and strategic planning, and investment management. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Marketing Division, DuPont Textile Fibers Dept: Technical Service Manager for Reemay® and Typar®. Marketing Manager for Reemay®, Typar®, and Sontara®. Strategy and Development Assistant for Nomex® fiber and paper; responsible for business plans, earnings, and forecast.
    [Show full text]
  • How Can Original Sin Be Inherited?
    DEAR FATHER KERPER Michelangelo, The Fall and Expulsion from Garden of Eden. Web Gallery of Art sinned against obedience. But this act How can original represents much more: they actually rejected friendship with God and, even worse, attempted to supplant God as God. sin be inherited? To see this more clearly, we must rewind the Genesis tape back to chapter ear Father Kerper: I’ve always had a huge 1. Here we find that God had created problem with original sin. It seems so unfair. I can the first human beings “in the image of God.” (Genesis 1:27) As such, they understand punishing someone who has broken a immediately enjoyed friendship and law. That’s perfectly just. But why should someone even kinship with God, who had Dwho’s done nothing wrong get punished for what someone else lovingly created them so that they could share everything with Him. did millions of years ago? Though Adam and Eve had everything that human beings could Many people share your understandable In the case of speeding, the possibly enjoy, the serpent tempted reaction against the doctrine of original punishment – say a $200 ticket – is them to seek even more. Recall the sin. As you’ve expressed so well, it does always imposed directly on the specific serpent’s words to Eve: “God knows in indeed seem to violate the basic norms of person who committed an isolated fact that the day you eat it [the forbidden fairness. But it really doesn’t. How so? illegal act. Moreover, the punishment is fruit] your eyes will be opened and you To overcome this charge of unfairness, designed to prevent dangerous and illegal will be like gods.” (Genesis 3:5) we must do two things: first, reconsider behavior by creating terribly unpleasant By eating the forbidden fruit, Adam the meaning of punishment; and second, consequences, namely costly fines and and Eve attempted to seize equality rediscover the social nature – and social eventually the loss of one’s license.
    [Show full text]
  • ORIGINAL SIN, INFANT SALVATION, and the BAPTISM of INFANTS —A Critique of Some Contemporary Baptist Authors—
    MJT 12 (2001) 47-79 ORIGINAL SIN, INFANT SALVATION, AND THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS —A Critique of Some Contemporary Baptist Authors— by J. Mark Beach Introduction IN REFORMED THINKING the covenant of grace forms the basis for the practice of infant baptism. This practice, however, has been much contested within Protestant theology, causing the mercury on the theological thermometer to rise from time to time. Heated polemics, of course, are not foreign to the topic of infant baptism. Countless articles, treatises, books, and pamphlets have been written in favor of and in opposition to the baptism of infants. Certainly theologians and scholars have not lacked resolve and conviction regarding this subject; nonetheless, no unanimity has resulted as a consequence of nearly half a millennium of polemics. Proponents from each side of the debate have been unable to achieve a consensus among Protestants regarding the proper subjects of baptism. The issue remains a cause for division. Thus, after nearly five hundred years of debate, some theologians are pleading for a truce within the evangelical church. Wayne Grudem, for example, while himself arguing vigorously for believer’s baptism, does not think baptism ought to be a point of division among churches. He suggests that paedobaptists and advocates of believer’s baptism jointly acknowledge that “baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith.” Grudem recognizes that this would require concessions on the part of 48 • MID-AMERICA JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Baptists and paedobaptists alike so that both views of baptism could be “taught and practiced” in their respective churches. 1 Grudem’s suggestion comes, as noted above, after he has waged his own polemic against infant baptism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church
    The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church A History Joseph F. Kelly A Michael Glazier Book LITURGICAL PRESS Collegeville, Minnesota www.litpress.org A Michael Glazier Book published by Liturgical Press Cover design by David Manahan, OSB. Painting in Kiev, Sofia. Photo by Sasha Martynchuk. © Sasha Martynchuk and iStockphoto. Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms © 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, DC, and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner. © 2009 by Order of Saint Benedict, Collegeville, Minnesota. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, microfilm, microfiche, mechanical recording, photocopying, translation, or by any other means, known or yet unknown, for any purpose except brief quotations in reviews, without the previ- ous written permission of Liturgical Press, Saint John’s Abbey, PO Box 7500, Col- legeville, Minnesota 56321-7500. Printed in the United States of America. 123456789 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kelly, Joseph F. (Joseph Francis), 1945– The ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church : a history / Joseph F. Kelly. p. cm. “A Michael Glazier book”—T.p. verso. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 978-0-8146-5376-0 (pbk.) 1. Councils
    [Show full text]
  • Babies, Baptism, and Original Sin: Augustine's Understanding of the Theological Implications of Infant Baptism
    Babies, Baptism, and Original Sin: Augustine's Understanding of the Theological Implications of Infant Baptism By Jeffrey J. Meyers The rite of infant baptism as practiced in the church before Augustine has been appropriately called “a practice in search of a theology.”1 Although solid evidence exists for the practice of paedobaptism from the time of Tertullian, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that it was the custom from Apostolic times,2 nevertheless, to say that there was no consensus of opinion concerning the theological rationale for the sacramental rite would be an understatement. That the ritual of paedobaptism was practiced universally from about 200 A.D. till the time of Augustine is almost certain; what theological significance it had, and why it was administered to babies remained open to theological development. In response to errant Pelagian theology, Augustine developed a catholic theology of infant baptism from the meaning and implications of the rite itself in conjunction with his understanding of the 1David F. Wright, “How Controversial Was the Development of Infant Baptism in the Early Church,” Church, Word, and Spirit: Historical and Theological Essays in Honor of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, eds. James E Bradley and Richard A. Muller (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987) 50, 51. 2Tertullian’s polemic against infant and young child baptism does not necessarily imply the novelty of the practice (as Pelikan asserts, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100- 600), vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], 290); rather, Tertullian’s opposition is best understood as directed against an existing custom.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecumenical Councils Preparing for Next Week (Disciple 6–Eucharist 1)
    January St. Dominic’s RCIA Program Disciple The Church: 15 History & Teaching 4 Goal • Having switched the Disciple 4 & 5 weeks, we looks at an overview of the Sacraments last week (Disciple 5), and explored the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. These Sacraments are two of the three that initiate us into the Church community, and into Christ’s body and mission. This week we’ll continue to unpack the meaning of Church by looking broadly at its history one the last 2000 years. We’ll also explore it’s role as Teacher. How does the Church function in and through history? How does God walk with the Church through it all? Agenda • Welcome/Housekeeping (10) • Questions & Answers • Introduction to the Rosary (15) Discussion (15): • If the Church is The Body of Christ, what does this mean for Christ’s presence in the world through history and in the world today? • What do I admire about the Catholic Church’s activity in history? Does any part of the Church’s activity in history disturb or upset me? • How do I (might I) listen to what the Church has to say today? What is my approach/attitude to the Church as “Teacher”? • Presentation: The Church: History (35) • Break (10) • Presentation: The Church: Teaching & Belief (30) • Discussion (time permitting): • What is special to this moment in history? • What is the Good News of Christ & the Church that speaks to this moment in history? • How can the body of Christ proclaim & witness the Gospel and walk with others today? Housekeeping Notes • Rite of Acceptance: February 10th at the 11:30am and 5:30 Masses.
    [Show full text]