When David (A.) mentions at the beginning, that mastery in (mostly protestant) ministry of deconstructing text into something approximating its opposite meaning, and the subsequent reference to the first beatitude a little later, I was reminded of a classic example from William Barclay's Matthew commentary. In spite of expanding upon the significance of the term 'ptóchos', a rather convenient distillate at the end of the commentary states:
"So, the first beatitude means: O the bliss of those who have realised their own utter helplessness, and who have put their whole trust in God, for...".
Whatever the original, intended meaning was, any wee form of "rabble rousing" is duly extinguished. Rather helpful of course in refocussing efforts on that modus vivendi with the "well heeled" members.
Etienne Gilson, on the political stomping grounds of one Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., aka The Sacred Monster of Thomism:
"...Posterity will have more leisure than we have, and the future will see things from a distance that is lacking to us. Those who are curious about doctrinal teratology will enjoy unraveling the intricacies of such an alliance. On the political level no explanation is needed. The French people are born fanatics; rightists or leftists, they are always willing to persecute one another in the name of some sacred principle. ....The really interesting question was to know why a Master in Theology belonging to the Order of Saint Dominic, as well as a highly qualified interpreter of Thomism who enjoyed in the Church an unchallenged doctrinal authority, should then have felt duty bound to teach that Charles Maurras and Saint Thomas Aquinas agreed on the notion of "the best political regime."
It is enough to open the Summa Theologiae at the right place to know that this is not true. Yet this theologian was very far from being alone in his error. Laymen of great intelligence and talent did not hesitate to side quite openly with the "party of order". The heart of the problem would be to know how, by what secret channels, Thomism could seem to them to offer a theological justification of the political theory of Charles Maurras. What the royalists hoped to gain from such an alliance is obvious. Saint Thomas is the Common Doctor of the Church. To establish that his political doctrine was the same as that of Charles Maurras amounted to proving that the political doctrine of Charles Maurras was that of the Church. With this proved, all French Catholics without exception would have been held in conscience to accept the monarchist politics of the Action Francaise. What a haul! Let us resist the temptation to ask what peculiar brand of "Thomism" this must have been to feel akin to the positivism of Maurras which, like that of Comte, was deeply interested in Rome but not in Jerusalem."
In relation to the fact that we are killing the Earth and probably the human species (on purely scientific grounds it's hard to see how we can escape apocalyptic catastrophe, at least on a cultural level), if theism is true, that's tragic but also insignificant. Humanity will be here for ages to come in our common and glorious path towards atonement. Having said that, and keeping in mind that it is not given to us to know the ways of God's special providence, I have the feeling that God is not yet finished with the present age, which is a special one because it concerns our spiritual birth. It is only in this age that doubt about the truth of theism is possible, indeed inevitable. In a sense, the present age is the foundation of the atonement. Either way, whatever happens - and it is remarkable how little wisdom humanity has gained two millennia after the miracle of the Incarnation - the Good News is not affected. Whatever happens, if theism is true, then the end for which God made creation will be realised.
It is utterly fascinating to see how many believers twist the words when it comes to wealth, caring for the poor or healing the sick, while demanding absolute (ahistorical) literalist interpretations when it comes to LGBT-issues or womens rights. It seems like Gods grace didn't reach far enough down the latter to touch the untouchables, luckily Jeff Bezos was just close enough to be blessed.
Around one hour in you mentioned a book by Rambachan about Advaita, but don't say the title. Is it "The Advaita Worldview?" Tbh, a lot of his booktitles sound fascinating, but a good introduction would be welcome.
Perennial or Perpetual? Either way, thank you David for sharing this video. I thoroughly enjoyed the digressions and you certainly covered some terrain. Regarding the merits of Buddhism, I have found the practices and teachings of Buddhism to be of incredible benefit to the practice of my ‘Catholic’ faith. I would much rather listen to a dharma talk than a sermon (but then that’s a very low bar).
David, you bring up the 2nd edition of your New Testament translation, discussing the Phillipians Hymn. I'd pre-ordered it (on Amazon). But then I had second thoughts because 1) Could I not pre-order it from Yale instead? Answer's Yes of course (so no need to add to JB's pile), and 2) Might you not get more if we retail buyers go through them directly? Does the publishing biz work like that these days? Dunno, but I can report that the paperback price from yalebooks.yale.edu is the same as at Amazon ($24). Haven't found a hardcover anywhere yet.
Thought others might be interested in this, too. Q. 2 is doubtless more arcane to research.
When David (A.) mentions at the beginning, that mastery in (mostly protestant) ministry of deconstructing text into something approximating its opposite meaning, and the subsequent reference to the first beatitude a little later, I was reminded of a classic example from William Barclay's Matthew commentary. In spite of expanding upon the significance of the term 'ptóchos', a rather convenient distillate at the end of the commentary states:
"So, the first beatitude means: O the bliss of those who have realised their own utter helplessness, and who have put their whole trust in God, for...".
Whatever the original, intended meaning was, any wee form of "rabble rousing" is duly extinguished. Rather helpful of course in refocussing efforts on that modus vivendi with the "well heeled" members.
Etienne Gilson, on the political stomping grounds of one Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., aka The Sacred Monster of Thomism:
"...Posterity will have more leisure than we have, and the future will see things from a distance that is lacking to us. Those who are curious about doctrinal teratology will enjoy unraveling the intricacies of such an alliance. On the political level no explanation is needed. The French people are born fanatics; rightists or leftists, they are always willing to persecute one another in the name of some sacred principle. ....The really interesting question was to know why a Master in Theology belonging to the Order of Saint Dominic, as well as a highly qualified interpreter of Thomism who enjoyed in the Church an unchallenged doctrinal authority, should then have felt duty bound to teach that Charles Maurras and Saint Thomas Aquinas agreed on the notion of "the best political regime."
It is enough to open the Summa Theologiae at the right place to know that this is not true. Yet this theologian was very far from being alone in his error. Laymen of great intelligence and talent did not hesitate to side quite openly with the "party of order". The heart of the problem would be to know how, by what secret channels, Thomism could seem to them to offer a theological justification of the political theory of Charles Maurras. What the royalists hoped to gain from such an alliance is obvious. Saint Thomas is the Common Doctor of the Church. To establish that his political doctrine was the same as that of Charles Maurras amounted to proving that the political doctrine of Charles Maurras was that of the Church. With this proved, all French Catholics without exception would have been held in conscience to accept the monarchist politics of the Action Francaise. What a haul! Let us resist the temptation to ask what peculiar brand of "Thomism" this must have been to feel akin to the positivism of Maurras which, like that of Comte, was deeply interested in Rome but not in Jerusalem."
–The Philosopher and Theology
In relation to the fact that we are killing the Earth and probably the human species (on purely scientific grounds it's hard to see how we can escape apocalyptic catastrophe, at least on a cultural level), if theism is true, that's tragic but also insignificant. Humanity will be here for ages to come in our common and glorious path towards atonement. Having said that, and keeping in mind that it is not given to us to know the ways of God's special providence, I have the feeling that God is not yet finished with the present age, which is a special one because it concerns our spiritual birth. It is only in this age that doubt about the truth of theism is possible, indeed inevitable. In a sense, the present age is the foundation of the atonement. Either way, whatever happens - and it is remarkable how little wisdom humanity has gained two millennia after the miracle of the Incarnation - the Good News is not affected. Whatever happens, if theism is true, then the end for which God made creation will be realised.
It is utterly fascinating to see how many believers twist the words when it comes to wealth, caring for the poor or healing the sick, while demanding absolute (ahistorical) literalist interpretations when it comes to LGBT-issues or womens rights. It seems like Gods grace didn't reach far enough down the latter to touch the untouchables, luckily Jeff Bezos was just close enough to be blessed.
Around one hour in you mentioned a book by Rambachan about Advaita, but don't say the title. Is it "The Advaita Worldview?" Tbh, a lot of his booktitles sound fascinating, but a good introduction would be welcome.
Perennial or Perpetual? Either way, thank you David for sharing this video. I thoroughly enjoyed the digressions and you certainly covered some terrain. Regarding the merits of Buddhism, I have found the practices and teachings of Buddhism to be of incredible benefit to the practice of my ‘Catholic’ faith. I would much rather listen to a dharma talk than a sermon (but then that’s a very low bar).
David, you bring up the 2nd edition of your New Testament translation, discussing the Phillipians Hymn. I'd pre-ordered it (on Amazon). But then I had second thoughts because 1) Could I not pre-order it from Yale instead? Answer's Yes of course (so no need to add to JB's pile), and 2) Might you not get more if we retail buyers go through them directly? Does the publishing biz work like that these days? Dunno, but I can report that the paperback price from yalebooks.yale.edu is the same as at Amazon ($24). Haven't found a hardcover anywhere yet.
Thought others might be interested in this, too. Q. 2 is doubtless more arcane to research.