I must admit, Doctor of Unity doesn't feel like quite the right appellation, but I am struggling to think what would be the right one. On refuting the Gnostics, he is invaluable today as we see a return of Gnosticism. Doctor of Orthodoxy I imagine wouldn't go down well, but that's sort of what I'd like to call him.
Yeah, I see where you're going with "The Doctor of Orthodoxy," but that would also confuse people with the West and East dynamic.
"Against Heresies" is a magnificent work with the refutation of Gnosticism, but again, History does seem to indicate him to be a point for division amongst Christians.
The weight of one thing over another, as in historical effects of Church division and unity, don't work with Irenaeus because they're not an essential measuring stick for a doctor of the Church. Also, the refutation of Irenaeus as ambiguous on some subjects could be high praise rather than worrisome analysis.
I'm not dismissing academic analysis, but setting it aside in these matters. The assignment of Irenaeus as a doctor of unity simply fits the Church leadership's current agenda. A look at the designations of earlier doctor's "specialty" can also seem to more fit an agenda than signify a saint's perspective.
Any doctor's written works are not scripture and display everything from musings to errant, likely parochial thinking. Irenaeus's importance may not equate him to Aquinas, Thomas, or Teresa of Avila. Equality, again, is not a measuring stick for doctors.
Thanks John for your comment. I'm going to push back briefly to understand you more fully here.
In regards to St. Irenaeus being imprecise with his theological concepts, my argument is less concern with St. Irenaeus himself and more concerned with those who use this ambiguousness for their own purposes, which seeds division--not unity. For example, if I were in a debate with a person not well versed with St. Irenaeus, it might tempting rhetorically to use him as a point of authority with this debate opponent. If I thought my opponent to be better versed with St. Irenaeus, I know enough to be able to dismiss him completely because of his imprecision and historiography.
On the account of use from Current leadership's agenda, what in your view is this agenda? In reference to the article, Pope Francis mentions it with Eastern and Western Christian relations, but is St. Irenaeus needed for this? Isn't, for example, St. John Chrysostom a point of unity between East and West?
Pope Francis today tweeted, "#ChristianUnity is not attained so much by agreement about some shared value, but by doing something concrete together for those who bring us closest to the Lord: the poor, for in them Jesus is present (Mt 25:40). Sharing in works of charity helps us make greater progress."
Do you think this agreeing with St. Irenaeus' view of Christian unity being tied to sharing the articles of faith?
Ah yes. Using Irenaeus for their own purposes, whether his ambiguity or their historical agenda (meaning Pope Francis' desire for East/West unity), is the sore point. As you say, the academic process of debate reveals your need for precision and history. I'm not sure that matters in the selection of Irenaeus as "special" for Francis' desire for unity. Such is the lens of the Church throughout our history. I'm not picking on your academics. It's just clearly not what the Church cares about here. I believe they're fixated on an agenda and fail to let the Holy Spirit lead in this specific "unity" mission. Unity is the Holy Spirit's constant gathering and molding effort. This goofy assignment of unity to Irenaeus is poor following rather than bad academics.
I believe St. Irenaeus is needed by the Church's agenda. They're using him for their advantage. I doubt the Holy Spirit is as involved in this element of the Vatican's operations as it should be. Props and straw men and square pegs in round holes are usually clues to the Church's mistaken urgencies. Yet, our Church history often goes through these antics. Francis' reign is not unfamiliar to other such propped up ideologies.
To be clear, I do not see his time in this office as not led by the Holy Spirit. I myself prop up my agenda on a daily basis. I cut two pieces of bread just this morning rather than one, because I "needed" the extra toast to sop up my eggs.
I like your St. John Chrysostom reference. Such a better choice, but the forced hand is usually too rushed, too little, and too late.
Francis' tweet is a jumble of just what we're talking about. Works of charity have little to do with progress and everything to do with taking the opportunity to allow God to work through us for his purpose. Again, it's that square peg urgency that frosts a poorly cooked, crooked cake.
Then, again, I enjoyed the toast, and I know that God sighs only a tiny bit as he happily joins me today for lunch.
Regarding St. Irenaeus and unity through the articles of faith, Some folks often make comments that Catholics and Orthodox because they share concepts of priesthood and sacraments are closer than the Western divisions of Christianity, but there are some issues when it comes to concepts like the Filioque, Palamism, and Original Sin that make the differences between East and West vast. In some sense, the soteriology becomes fairly different from East and West.
I wonder if Pope Francis' push for the synodal way can succeed in bridging these differences, where JP II and BXVI tried to unify the Church but were not able to accomplish it. Do you see this as part of the agenda?
I do wish all three of those were part of the agenda, but I worry that the less theologically stringent forefront of the Church would stride forward too eagerly. Think China, South America, and Biden.
John Paul and Benedict accomplished conversations, protocols to meet, and consideration of God's authority over both West and East communities. That's no small accomplishment. Neither of them would have made the mistakes of Francis' forays into the political netherland of China, the cultural mayhem of anti-Marian statues (not even JPII), and the fawning over an apostate leader of a country Francis sorely dislikes.
Like unity, theological topics are rife with ideology. Filioque may remain a separation similar to worldwide Football as opposed to US Football. Australians have an even further afield Footie. Clearly, the error is in the US naming of a sport using arms, legs, heads (rarely feet) and protective equipment. But will that ever change? Not defaming Filioque as a sporting error, just calling for competitive pause.
Palamism is less difficult. In my mind, it's a feigned sabre-rattling debate without legs. My God, what a fruitless argument when monastic life requires both transcendence and presence, and all camps of Christianity (save a few) can attend to a common language about this.
Original Sin is complex, but wholly confined to a biblical world view. At one end is our perfect beginning gone back (Genesis) and our redemption into incorruption (Revelation) upcoming. We can't agree to disagree, but we can allow fixing the less complex first and tackle the difficult purely by the grace of God's intervention.
Finally, I'd suppose that a combination of Avery Dulles' Models of the Church and the Seven Letters to the Seven Churches says more about unity through differences simply because God allows what God has allowed. Those seven letters were written by Jesus to John. It'll take Jesus to weave all, eventually, won't it? Can't we leave some stuff for his return, where the offenders say, "Oh, I get it," and the defenders drop their swords. A blending, like the US melting pot, is not our goal, is it?
Synodal way? I've worked in a diocese that invoked consensus until its obvious, dismal removal. Synod offers only a coming internet of input that updates the Church on confusions, societal grip, and stuff they might not have considered. It's inevitable. The bigger problem is that original forced ideology discussed earlier over following the Holy Spirit.
Yes, it's gotta be part of the Agenda, Phillip. Agendas are weary, well-worn disguises for not getting things done the old fashioned way -- full steam ahead and help us Lord to not make too many mistakes.
I've always thought about readings Dulles' Models, but never have gotten around to it. I've always enjoyed his views on Covenant theology.
I suppose I get bored with all the 'agenda' driveness within the ecclesiology of the Church because there's really nothing I can do about it either way.
So, what can I do? Proclaim the Gospel and get back to the kerygma. I'm a simple guy at the end of the day. I like history, I like studying Sacred Scripture, and I want more people to know about Jesus and I want my kids to be Saints.
I must admit, Doctor of Unity doesn't feel like quite the right appellation, but I am struggling to think what would be the right one. On refuting the Gnostics, he is invaluable today as we see a return of Gnosticism. Doctor of Orthodoxy I imagine wouldn't go down well, but that's sort of what I'd like to call him.
Yeah, I see where you're going with "The Doctor of Orthodoxy," but that would also confuse people with the West and East dynamic.
"Against Heresies" is a magnificent work with the refutation of Gnosticism, but again, History does seem to indicate him to be a point for division amongst Christians.
The weight of one thing over another, as in historical effects of Church division and unity, don't work with Irenaeus because they're not an essential measuring stick for a doctor of the Church. Also, the refutation of Irenaeus as ambiguous on some subjects could be high praise rather than worrisome analysis.
I'm not dismissing academic analysis, but setting it aside in these matters. The assignment of Irenaeus as a doctor of unity simply fits the Church leadership's current agenda. A look at the designations of earlier doctor's "specialty" can also seem to more fit an agenda than signify a saint's perspective.
Any doctor's written works are not scripture and display everything from musings to errant, likely parochial thinking. Irenaeus's importance may not equate him to Aquinas, Thomas, or Teresa of Avila. Equality, again, is not a measuring stick for doctors.
Thanks John for your comment. I'm going to push back briefly to understand you more fully here.
In regards to St. Irenaeus being imprecise with his theological concepts, my argument is less concern with St. Irenaeus himself and more concerned with those who use this ambiguousness for their own purposes, which seeds division--not unity. For example, if I were in a debate with a person not well versed with St. Irenaeus, it might tempting rhetorically to use him as a point of authority with this debate opponent. If I thought my opponent to be better versed with St. Irenaeus, I know enough to be able to dismiss him completely because of his imprecision and historiography.
On the account of use from Current leadership's agenda, what in your view is this agenda? In reference to the article, Pope Francis mentions it with Eastern and Western Christian relations, but is St. Irenaeus needed for this? Isn't, for example, St. John Chrysostom a point of unity between East and West?
Pope Francis today tweeted, "#ChristianUnity is not attained so much by agreement about some shared value, but by doing something concrete together for those who bring us closest to the Lord: the poor, for in them Jesus is present (Mt 25:40). Sharing in works of charity helps us make greater progress."
Do you think this agreeing with St. Irenaeus' view of Christian unity being tied to sharing the articles of faith?
I'm eager to see your thoughts.
Ah yes. Using Irenaeus for their own purposes, whether his ambiguity or their historical agenda (meaning Pope Francis' desire for East/West unity), is the sore point. As you say, the academic process of debate reveals your need for precision and history. I'm not sure that matters in the selection of Irenaeus as "special" for Francis' desire for unity. Such is the lens of the Church throughout our history. I'm not picking on your academics. It's just clearly not what the Church cares about here. I believe they're fixated on an agenda and fail to let the Holy Spirit lead in this specific "unity" mission. Unity is the Holy Spirit's constant gathering and molding effort. This goofy assignment of unity to Irenaeus is poor following rather than bad academics.
I believe St. Irenaeus is needed by the Church's agenda. They're using him for their advantage. I doubt the Holy Spirit is as involved in this element of the Vatican's operations as it should be. Props and straw men and square pegs in round holes are usually clues to the Church's mistaken urgencies. Yet, our Church history often goes through these antics. Francis' reign is not unfamiliar to other such propped up ideologies.
To be clear, I do not see his time in this office as not led by the Holy Spirit. I myself prop up my agenda on a daily basis. I cut two pieces of bread just this morning rather than one, because I "needed" the extra toast to sop up my eggs.
I like your St. John Chrysostom reference. Such a better choice, but the forced hand is usually too rushed, too little, and too late.
Francis' tweet is a jumble of just what we're talking about. Works of charity have little to do with progress and everything to do with taking the opportunity to allow God to work through us for his purpose. Again, it's that square peg urgency that frosts a poorly cooked, crooked cake.
Then, again, I enjoyed the toast, and I know that God sighs only a tiny bit as he happily joins me today for lunch.
Thanks for your expansion here.
Regarding St. Irenaeus and unity through the articles of faith, Some folks often make comments that Catholics and Orthodox because they share concepts of priesthood and sacraments are closer than the Western divisions of Christianity, but there are some issues when it comes to concepts like the Filioque, Palamism, and Original Sin that make the differences between East and West vast. In some sense, the soteriology becomes fairly different from East and West.
I wonder if Pope Francis' push for the synodal way can succeed in bridging these differences, where JP II and BXVI tried to unify the Church but were not able to accomplish it. Do you see this as part of the agenda?
I do wish all three of those were part of the agenda, but I worry that the less theologically stringent forefront of the Church would stride forward too eagerly. Think China, South America, and Biden.
John Paul and Benedict accomplished conversations, protocols to meet, and consideration of God's authority over both West and East communities. That's no small accomplishment. Neither of them would have made the mistakes of Francis' forays into the political netherland of China, the cultural mayhem of anti-Marian statues (not even JPII), and the fawning over an apostate leader of a country Francis sorely dislikes.
Like unity, theological topics are rife with ideology. Filioque may remain a separation similar to worldwide Football as opposed to US Football. Australians have an even further afield Footie. Clearly, the error is in the US naming of a sport using arms, legs, heads (rarely feet) and protective equipment. But will that ever change? Not defaming Filioque as a sporting error, just calling for competitive pause.
Palamism is less difficult. In my mind, it's a feigned sabre-rattling debate without legs. My God, what a fruitless argument when monastic life requires both transcendence and presence, and all camps of Christianity (save a few) can attend to a common language about this.
Original Sin is complex, but wholly confined to a biblical world view. At one end is our perfect beginning gone back (Genesis) and our redemption into incorruption (Revelation) upcoming. We can't agree to disagree, but we can allow fixing the less complex first and tackle the difficult purely by the grace of God's intervention.
Finally, I'd suppose that a combination of Avery Dulles' Models of the Church and the Seven Letters to the Seven Churches says more about unity through differences simply because God allows what God has allowed. Those seven letters were written by Jesus to John. It'll take Jesus to weave all, eventually, won't it? Can't we leave some stuff for his return, where the offenders say, "Oh, I get it," and the defenders drop their swords. A blending, like the US melting pot, is not our goal, is it?
Synodal way? I've worked in a diocese that invoked consensus until its obvious, dismal removal. Synod offers only a coming internet of input that updates the Church on confusions, societal grip, and stuff they might not have considered. It's inevitable. The bigger problem is that original forced ideology discussed earlier over following the Holy Spirit.
Yes, it's gotta be part of the Agenda, Phillip. Agendas are weary, well-worn disguises for not getting things done the old fashioned way -- full steam ahead and help us Lord to not make too many mistakes.
I've always thought about readings Dulles' Models, but never have gotten around to it. I've always enjoyed his views on Covenant theology.
I suppose I get bored with all the 'agenda' driveness within the ecclesiology of the Church because there's really nothing I can do about it either way.
So, what can I do? Proclaim the Gospel and get back to the kerygma. I'm a simple guy at the end of the day. I like history, I like studying Sacred Scripture, and I want more people to know about Jesus and I want my kids to be Saints.
Amen to that.