Hey Fellow Theology Students/graduates....help Please!

[bmb144]

Four years later and after a barrel load of ups and down, I'm hitting a brick wall and really need some advice before I throw up my hands!

I'm a church history major, and the degree is a theology degree. No, I'm not studying through a Catholic university but thankfully where I am studying through does not Catholic bash.

I am though finding that the more I study the history of the church, the less my faith in the church becomes and that then affects my relationship with God and Jesus to the point where I am seriously doubting that I know Jesus at all.

So my question is simple...to those who have studied a theology degree or are studying one right now...how do you separate your studies from your faith?

[TeresaBenedicta]

This is one of the biggest downfalls of modern Theology, I think... it does not inspire faith!!

What a terrible thing, when the study of God does not bring one closer Him! Yet, it is a very common thing nowadays. I dropped my theology major to a minor precisely because of this... and I have seen plenty of friends begin to waver in their faith because of their study of theology. At first it made me sad, but after a particular event last month, it brought me to an absolute outrage. But that's neither here nor there.

The study of theology, as they say, begins on your knees. It should be inspired only by the desire to know and love God more fully.

I recently graduated with a degree in a closely related field, Philosophy. And like I said, I minored in Theology.

To answer your question... I don't separate my studies from my faith. Precisely because I see my study as part of my faith. "Faith seeking understanding." I search for Truth, in all of my studies. I also recognize that this is not the attitude with which most modern theologians view their theology or their teaching of theology. In fact, I don't really consider most professors of Theology to be true theologians because of this. Historical theology is not true theology. It might be interesting, it might shed light on some things... but it's nothing more than a modern (in the philosophical sense) way of doing theology.

And that's really what we're dealing with here... Theology doesn't exist in Modernity. It can't. So, in an attempt to somehow mix in with Modernity, the field of 'Theology' has morphed itself into something that seems compatible, but really isn't.

With that in mind, I often take what I learn in 'Theology' classes with a grain of salt. Or, I should say, with a discerning mind. Unfortunately all of my real study of theology has to come on my own, since, as I said, modern Theology really isn't Theology anymore.

[tinytherese]

I don't know the specifics you're talking about when it comes to what you have learned from studying Church History, but perhaps this article might give you some insight into the issue. http://www.catholic.com/library/A_Crisis_of_Saints.asp

Also, have you ever read Pope John Paul II's encyclical Faith and Reason, (On The Relationship between Fides et Ratio)?

Edited June 1, 2010 by tinytherese

[Thy Geekdom Come]

The reason we've had hardly any theologian saints since the counter-reformation is that theology has been made an academic pursuit and not a spiritual one. In seminaries, there are formation programs so that priests normally get theology on an intellectual level and a spiritual level. Lay programs, even good ones, don't do this. Catholic universities need to join their academic and spiritual programs into a program of formation for the whole person.

If you study church history fro a secular school, beware of anti-catholic bias. Further, integrate your studies with your prayer life. Remember that from those to whom more has been given, more shall be expected. If you study theology but separate it from your spiritual and moral life, you're not meeting the expectation. Your spiritual life will shrivel.

[CatherineM]

Lay formation and spiritual direction have been crucial for me. I spent a summer studying in Washington DC many years ago, and while I was gone, one calamity after another happened back home that required my constant attention on the phone, and feeling pulled. I almost gave up and went home, and one of the priests sat me down and talked to me. He said that he had seen this kind of thing before in seminarians who were destined to really make a difference. It's as if Satan wants to get into the head of the ones he thinks can do him the most harm. Theology isn't like studying communications or English. It's more like studying to be a psychologist or psychiatrist. It will bring stuff up. Therapists all have to have their own therapists just to stay on an even keel. Theology students need formation and spiritual direction for the same reasons.

[Ziggamafu]

My faith went through an initially rough patch, but I now find that my faith is more mature and a great deal stronger thanks to my new outlook regarding the human aspect of the Church Militant. Our faith is supernaturally protected from the idiocy of our actions; despite countless blunders, our Church survives (similar to the history of the Bible). I have no problem with apparent errors in Scripture or apparent contradictions in arguably authoritative papal declarations, whether or not the problems may have plausible resolutions. The Bible is all true and most of it really happened. Dogmas are all true and most of them are really accurate.

I've learned to appreciate the difference between divine inspiration and divine dictation in regards to the Bible, and the difference between infallibility and impeccability in regards to the Magisterium. "Inerrancy" does not mean perfection (or 100% historicity) in regards to the text of Scripture. "Infallibility" does not mean perfection in regards to the dogmas of the Church [i]Militant[/i]. Inerrancy and infallibility refer to [u]perfection in regards to the Tradition contained in Scripture as perfectly understood by the Church [i]Triumphant[/i][/u]. [b]So we obey the divinely assisted Magisterium of the Church Militant in its interpretation and proclamation of Divine Revelation (Scripture / Tradition), but we also recognize the human limitations involved and the nature of the divine safeguards over those limitations.
[/b] And we certainly don't expect much from ourselves when it comes to human decisions in history.

What I am trying to say is this: when I was a Protestant, and when I was newly Catholic, I could neither process nor tolerate the possibility of an apparent "problem" of any kind in the authority behind my faith. "Problems" were dealt with by means of any harmonization or explanation that would dismiss the appearance of the alleged "problem" so as to defensively minimize the..."issue"...to the point of a claimed irrelevance. And it didn't matter how far-fetched the explanation was, so long as it was an answer. After having been Catholic for a few years I have found that orthodoxy need not mean plugging one's ears to objective scholarship (in any field) when it seems to challenge conventional Catholic understandings. This has been very refreshing. I highly suggest you check out Raymond Brown's "Introduction to New Testament Christology" and "Introduction to the New Testament", then-Joseph Ratzinger's "Daughter Zion" and "Introduction to Christianity", and Joseph Fitzmyer's "Christological Catechism".

Our God is the greatest of all so-called gods. Our Christ is rooted in history, and is the greatest of all founders of religion. Our Church is the most charitable and fruitful force for good on the planet - objectively speaking - and her good accomplishments more than dwarf her sinful failures. Our Papacy is the only sure mark of authenticity when we seek the apostolic witness of Divine Revelation.

Revel in this glory.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='01 June 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1275435791' post='2122369']
I highly suggest you check out Raymond Brown's "Introduction to New Testament Christology" and "Introduction to the New Testament"
[/quote]

Ew.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='01 June 2010 - 09:14 PM' timestamp='1275441251' post='2122426']
Ew.
[/quote]



See, Brown cuts the bull. I love how in his NT Christology text he lays out various camps of contemporary theology (e.g. "scholarly conservative" vs "non-scholarly conservative" vs "liberal", etc.) and describes their conclusions on a generally objective basis, then reveals his personal bias (scholarly conservative). He does a great job of providing the objective data and summarizing the various positions of interpretation. He also does a good job of maintaining a formally orthodox obedience in his work, even when his work reveals an objectively greater weight for a conclusion that seems at odds with Church teaching. This is especially apparent in his "On the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of the Body". He presents the data for what it is, and challenges contemporary theologians to resolve the apparent discrepancies with Church teaching. He never cries out against the Church, but he does cry out for objective scholarship amidst an orthodox assent, which is why I like him so much.

The Holy Father has some older works that are written in similar ways. I understand the concerns, but I think that people too often write off legitimate scholarship merely because it calls for more theological legwork to maintain faithfulness to Sacred Tradition.

[bmb144]

Lay formation here is hugely lacking and I admit that freely due to being my mum's carer. The closest I get right now is the Oblate mailings that come from Jamberoo Abbey and my letters between Rev Mother Cyril [Tyburn]and myself and yes I brought this subject up with her.

Pope John Paul II's encyclical Faith and Reason, not yet but I will see if Jamberoo Abbey's bookshop has it.

I have Pope Benedict's intro to Christianity waiting to be read and I'm waiting on his book on Jesus to be delivered. I'll check the other books out.

Ziggamafu though has touched on a nerve and something that I struggles with, so if you don't mind, I'll quote you-


[quote]The Bible is all true and most of it really happened.[/quote]

This is one point where I struggle....eg. the Exodus...in theological circles its been all but proven impossible in that it could not have happened on that scale, if it happened at all looking at the archeological evidence. How does one reconcile that?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='In His Light' date='04 June 2010 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1275711762' post='2123973']
This is one point where I struggle....eg. the Exodus...in theological circles its been all but proven impossible in that it could not have happened on that scale, if it happened at all looking at the archeological evidence. How does one reconcile that?
[/quote]
By understanding that the Bible isn't a history book or a science book.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='01 June 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1275448113' post='2122556']


See, Brown cuts the bull. I love how in his NT Christology text he lays out various camps of contemporary theology (e.g. "scholarly conservative" vs "non-scholarly conservative" vs "liberal", etc.) and describes their conclusions on a generally objective basis, then reveals his personal bias (scholarly conservative). He does a great job of providing the objective data and summarizing the various positions of interpretation. He also does a good job of maintaining a formally orthodox obedience in his work, even when his work reveals an objectively greater weight for a conclusion that seems at odds with Church teaching. This is especially apparent in his "On the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of the Body". He presents the data for what it is, and challenges contemporary theologians to resolve the apparent discrepancies with Church teaching. He never cries out against the Church, but he does cry out for objective scholarship amidst an orthodox assent, which is why I like him so much.

The Holy Father has some older works that are written in similar ways. I understand the concerns, but I think that people too often write off legitimate scholarship merely because it calls for more theological legwork to maintain faithfulness to Sacred Tradition.
[/quote]
Brown occasionally quotes sources out of context in order to suit his purposes, e.g., Brown's treatment on Christ's human knowledge in his "Introduction to New Testament Christology" (see page 28) in which he quotes a sentence from St. Cyril of Alexandria's "Thesaurus on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity" that implies Christ was ignorant in His humanity, when only a few paragraphs earlier St. Cyril stated clearly that whenever Christ asserts that He does not know something, He does so "in accordance with the economy of salvation," meaning that He actually does know the thing in question, but that He is not meant to reveal it at that time.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='05 June 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1275712899' post='2123987']
By understanding that the Bible isn't a history book or a science book.
[/quote]

Exactly. The Bible is a divinely inspired message that is cloaked in human writing techniques (including myth-styles, fictions, and hyperbole) and even human inadequacies (including errors not pertaining to faith or morals). The message is revealed, with greater and greater clarity in every generation, by the voice of Christ in His Church. We read the Bible and cherish it as Sacred Scripture. We leave the Bible's interpretation, including the sorting of inspired historical records from inspired fictions, to the Church. The inspiration of the Bible and the infallibility of the Church go hand in hand.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='05 June 2010 - 02:32 AM' timestamp='1275719571' post='2124014']
Brown occasionally quotes sources out of context in order to suit his purposes, e.g., Brown's treatment on Christ's human knowledge in his "Introduction to New Testament Christology" (see page 28) in which he quotes a sentence from St. Cyril of Alexandria's "Thesaurus on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity" that implies Christ was ignorant in His humanity, when only a few paragraphs earlier St. Cyril stated clearly that whenever Christ asserts that He does not know something, He does so "in accordance with the economy of salvation," meaning that He actually does know the thing in question, but that He is not meant to reveal it at that time.
[/quote]

A friend is borrowing my copy, but I will be interested in re-reading the passage you mention. I give Brown the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he interprets St. Cyril in a different way, especially since his quote occurs immediately after the quote you mention, and might therefore be a better means of interpreting the previous thought.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='05 June 2010 - 04:41 AM' timestamp='1275734482' post='2124032']
A friend is borrowing my copy, but I will be interested in re-reading the passage you mention. I give Brown the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he interprets St. Cyril in a different way, especially since his quote occurs immediately after the quote you mention, and might therefore be a better means of interpreting the previous thought.
[/quote]
Actually the interpretation that Brown gives to the sentence he quotes, which he - like Richard McBrien - takes in isolation from its proper context makes St. Cyril guilty of the heresies (i.e., Arianism and Nestorianism) that he is condemning. Now, the key to properly understanding St. Cyril's Christology is to always focus upon the unity of Christ's hypostasis. Christ - as a divine person - cannot be ignorant of anything, although He may - as St. Cyril would say - [i]seem[/i] to be so as far as outward appearances are concerned. Christ is always one divine subsistence even after the incarnation.

[CatherineM]

There was a show on the history channel, I think, called the Exodus Revealed that was very interesting. We actually have it on DVD. You might be able to find it on youtube.