When I was a graduate student of theology at a mainstream Catholic university in the United States, I once ran afoul of a professor’s sensibilities on a discussion board by referring to the Old Israel as a “carnal prefigurement” of the New Israel, namely, the Catholic Church, during a conversation on Biblical typology.
I see that you learn a lot of Theology by “questio disputata” method, haha. Now seriously. Don’t you think this question has to do with a kind of rejection of Saint Paul introduced first by liberal Protestantism and afterwards adaptado in some catholic scholars? The claim that “Jesus preached the Kingdom and Paul invented the Church” has to do with this question I think. Of course, the good here is Jesus not Paul. You cannot deny superssesionism without contradicting any single line of Saint Paul’s letters. What do you think?
I really just don't understand why someone would choose to deny supersessionism while still calling himself a Christian. The whole point of Christianity is that the Messiah did come and fulfill the ancient prophecies and the old law. This is literally what makes Christianity a different religion from Judaism. You're right that when a lot of modern scholars speak of "the kingdom" they tend to conceptualize something other than a visible hierarchical Church, treating the kingdom like a vague, invisible "collection of believers" or something like that. Every heresy is just Gnosticism defrosted and re-microwaved time and time again.
Indeed. The Kingdom for them is "ethereal". Besides that, "Judaism" is something that started after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, in 70 A.D. The so-called 'council' of Yamnia is the moment when Judaism was created and they closed their 'canon' of some of the writings of the Old Testament, rejecting others. The Church already was settled, founded by its Saviour as the New Israel. The Apostles were very conscious of that, that is the main reason why they elected Matthias as an Apostle, to fulfill the number twelve as to fulfill the promises given by God to Israel that were accomplished in the Church.
Very good article. It is a shame you have to explain this so carefully and intricately (which you did a good job of) to people like your professor who seems to see everything through a cultural Marxist victim lens. So tiring.
It is so basic a thing that you just described, but many of bad Will start hyperventilating when you say it and turn it into something sensational when it is really just the most natural thing in the world
This professor was also involved in a "conversation" that another professor (who probably still wears a COVID mask to this day) in the theology department had decided to arrange with me to take me to task for offending a "rainbow" student in a class discussion during which I brought up Genesis 19. I wasn't even providing an exegesis but simply pointing out to this student that it wasn't canon law that prohibited homosexual "marriages," but divine law itself. The entire "conversation" (which honestly felt more like a trial) devolved into the first professor essentially asking "Quid est veritas?" and then using obscurantism and lots of big flowery words to deny objective truth while pretending not to deny objective truth. They eventually conceded the point I was making about Church teaching on marriage but then turned to being condescending and saying they were just trying to "mentor" me and help me "reflect on making arguments using a less offensive tone." I just can't take these people seriously. And if you stand your ground, they will ultimately back off because they're cowards. I can't say the theology department really liked me too much after that, but no one ever tried to fight me again.
I’m not sure how you did it. You said this was the theology department at a secular college? Or a liberal Catholic college? I can’t take dealing with these people. They are so wrong on so many levels. And it all starts with the false assumptions that they work under. The effort it takes to sustain a conversation with them without either losing your temper or going insane or unintentionally triggering them is Herculean.
It was a mainstream (translation: liberal) Catholic university. Interestingly enough, I found it easier to deal with people from the philosophy or humanities departments. We could start with Plato and Aristotle, find common ground through natural reason, and then get into theology proper and actually have a conversation. They were mostly civil if we disagreed, whereas theologians would become extremely offended if you challenged their post-conciliar hyper-papalist views. I treated every conversation as a real-life Medieval disputatio so I wasn't terribly annoyed.
The fact that it was supposed to be Catholic university would have made me more upset than if it was a secular university. It is one thing for the enemy to disagree with Catholicism. It is another thing for a fraudulent entity that calls itself catholic to not only disagree with Catholicism, but to represent its own errors as Catholicism.
You'll still have to deal with your fair share of political nonsense (along with general intellectual shallowness) at a secular university, but at least the secular university isn't pretending to be Catholic. I genuinely can't think of a single field that is immune to political nonsense these days. Even in my (classical) music program back in the day, there was a lot of blather about racial politics, along with large amounts of ugly twentieth-century artistic modernism and atonal trash (and professors complaining that my music wasn't "original" or "creative" enough because I wanted to actually follow the rules of voice-leading and structure). Sigh.
I would not recommend anyone study theology at the undergraduate or graduate level these days simply to get a theology degree. If you actually believe what the Church teachers, you'll have a REALLY hard time finding a job. I have literally never had a job actually related to theology, just a volunteer CCD position at a diocesan parish (which I got dismissed from within a few months) and teaching first communion prep for half a year at a school that had the TLM. I've had classical schools that have been interested in hiring me as a religion teacher and even given me offers, but nothing ever really worked out.
A theology degree is economically unhelpful unless you want to go all in and get a PhD and get a job at a university, in which case, good luck with that, given that it's difficult for recent PhD grads in every field to find jobs. I only did the M.A. because the university pretty much offered it to me for free, and because I knew that I could go straight into the "second cycle" of canon law studies and not have to do more graduate credits in theology before moving onto the actual law portion. It seems like canon lawyers tend to be more doctrinally orthodox than modern theologians; as long as they're sufficiently grounded in the law, they can only stray as far as the law allows them to (although the current law still allows quite a bit of that!). There are quite a few of them who are pro-TLM, and I know one priest who says the pre-55 Mass several times a week and is learning the pre-55 Office.
At this point in my life, I don't have any loyalty to a particular group, traditional or not, but despite all my criticisms of the Society of St. Pius X, I'm really grateful to have grown up in one of their communities and been introduced to the Summa of St. Thomas at fourteen. At least I walked into the liberal Catholic university knowing what to expect and armed with information about the crisis in the Church.
Yes, I have. I always thought it was interesting that he instructed his students not to take notes but to simply listen during class. People are so focused on trying to record and write down every piece of information today that it destroys the point of classical education. (Or worse yet, they're "taking notes" on their laptops, i.e. actually not paying any attention and doing something else on the Internet. Sigh.)
Another fantastic article, Dorothea! I will post to this to my Instagram as well, so that it may get more exposure and hopefully usher in some followers. Thank you for the consistent excellent work 🙏🏻
Dorothea, thank you. I am Jewish (a descendant of Judah) and, praise
God, a Catholic, I have never before seen these critical distinctions clearly stated and explained. I am very grateful.
I see that you learn a lot of Theology by “questio disputata” method, haha. Now seriously. Don’t you think this question has to do with a kind of rejection of Saint Paul introduced first by liberal Protestantism and afterwards adaptado in some catholic scholars? The claim that “Jesus preached the Kingdom and Paul invented the Church” has to do with this question I think. Of course, the good here is Jesus not Paul. You cannot deny superssesionism without contradicting any single line of Saint Paul’s letters. What do you think?
I really just don't understand why someone would choose to deny supersessionism while still calling himself a Christian. The whole point of Christianity is that the Messiah did come and fulfill the ancient prophecies and the old law. This is literally what makes Christianity a different religion from Judaism. You're right that when a lot of modern scholars speak of "the kingdom" they tend to conceptualize something other than a visible hierarchical Church, treating the kingdom like a vague, invisible "collection of believers" or something like that. Every heresy is just Gnosticism defrosted and re-microwaved time and time again.
Indeed. The Kingdom for them is "ethereal". Besides that, "Judaism" is something that started after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, in 70 A.D. The so-called 'council' of Yamnia is the moment when Judaism was created and they closed their 'canon' of some of the writings of the Old Testament, rejecting others. The Church already was settled, founded by its Saviour as the New Israel. The Apostles were very conscious of that, that is the main reason why they elected Matthias as an Apostle, to fulfill the number twelve as to fulfill the promises given by God to Israel that were accomplished in the Church.
Very good article. It is a shame you have to explain this so carefully and intricately (which you did a good job of) to people like your professor who seems to see everything through a cultural Marxist victim lens. So tiring.
It is so basic a thing that you just described, but many of bad Will start hyperventilating when you say it and turn it into something sensational when it is really just the most natural thing in the world
This professor was also involved in a "conversation" that another professor (who probably still wears a COVID mask to this day) in the theology department had decided to arrange with me to take me to task for offending a "rainbow" student in a class discussion during which I brought up Genesis 19. I wasn't even providing an exegesis but simply pointing out to this student that it wasn't canon law that prohibited homosexual "marriages," but divine law itself. The entire "conversation" (which honestly felt more like a trial) devolved into the first professor essentially asking "Quid est veritas?" and then using obscurantism and lots of big flowery words to deny objective truth while pretending not to deny objective truth. They eventually conceded the point I was making about Church teaching on marriage but then turned to being condescending and saying they were just trying to "mentor" me and help me "reflect on making arguments using a less offensive tone." I just can't take these people seriously. And if you stand your ground, they will ultimately back off because they're cowards. I can't say the theology department really liked me too much after that, but no one ever tried to fight me again.
I’m not sure how you did it. You said this was the theology department at a secular college? Or a liberal Catholic college? I can’t take dealing with these people. They are so wrong on so many levels. And it all starts with the false assumptions that they work under. The effort it takes to sustain a conversation with them without either losing your temper or going insane or unintentionally triggering them is Herculean.
It was a mainstream (translation: liberal) Catholic university. Interestingly enough, I found it easier to deal with people from the philosophy or humanities departments. We could start with Plato and Aristotle, find common ground through natural reason, and then get into theology proper and actually have a conversation. They were mostly civil if we disagreed, whereas theologians would become extremely offended if you challenged their post-conciliar hyper-papalist views. I treated every conversation as a real-life Medieval disputatio so I wasn't terribly annoyed.
The fact that it was supposed to be Catholic university would have made me more upset than if it was a secular university. It is one thing for the enemy to disagree with Catholicism. It is another thing for a fraudulent entity that calls itself catholic to not only disagree with Catholicism, but to represent its own errors as Catholicism.
You'll still have to deal with your fair share of political nonsense (along with general intellectual shallowness) at a secular university, but at least the secular university isn't pretending to be Catholic. I genuinely can't think of a single field that is immune to political nonsense these days. Even in my (classical) music program back in the day, there was a lot of blather about racial politics, along with large amounts of ugly twentieth-century artistic modernism and atonal trash (and professors complaining that my music wasn't "original" or "creative" enough because I wanted to actually follow the rules of voice-leading and structure). Sigh.
I would not recommend anyone study theology at the undergraduate or graduate level these days simply to get a theology degree. If you actually believe what the Church teachers, you'll have a REALLY hard time finding a job. I have literally never had a job actually related to theology, just a volunteer CCD position at a diocesan parish (which I got dismissed from within a few months) and teaching first communion prep for half a year at a school that had the TLM. I've had classical schools that have been interested in hiring me as a religion teacher and even given me offers, but nothing ever really worked out.
A theology degree is economically unhelpful unless you want to go all in and get a PhD and get a job at a university, in which case, good luck with that, given that it's difficult for recent PhD grads in every field to find jobs. I only did the M.A. because the university pretty much offered it to me for free, and because I knew that I could go straight into the "second cycle" of canon law studies and not have to do more graduate credits in theology before moving onto the actual law portion. It seems like canon lawyers tend to be more doctrinally orthodox than modern theologians; as long as they're sufficiently grounded in the law, they can only stray as far as the law allows them to (although the current law still allows quite a bit of that!). There are quite a few of them who are pro-TLM, and I know one priest who says the pre-55 Mass several times a week and is learning the pre-55 Office.
At this point in my life, I don't have any loyalty to a particular group, traditional or not, but despite all my criticisms of the Society of St. Pius X, I'm really grateful to have grown up in one of their communities and been introduced to the Summa of St. Thomas at fourteen. At least I walked into the liberal Catholic university knowing what to expect and armed with information about the crisis in the Church.
That also describes the post V II “Church”. How long, O Lord?
Have you heard of Dr. John Senior?
Yes, I have. I always thought it was interesting that he instructed his students not to take notes but to simply listen during class. People are so focused on trying to record and write down every piece of information today that it destroys the point of classical education. (Or worse yet, they're "taking notes" on their laptops, i.e. actually not paying any attention and doing something else on the Internet. Sigh.)
Great article. Lays framework for addressing the (well, one of them anyway) elephant in the room.
Another fantastic article, Dorothea! I will post to this to my Instagram as well, so that it may get more exposure and hopefully usher in some followers. Thank you for the consistent excellent work 🙏🏻