Replies

At Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, CA they'll drag you out to the nearest avocado orchard and tie you to a tree for the coyotes to devour -- but then again, they're very, uh, zealous. (And if you knew enough Heidegger, others in the faculty would sneak out and turn you loose, if you promised to go away and never come back.)

That's surprising to me. But then, I have only seen Heidegger as described and quoted by a Reformer. I had the impression that the Orthodox "should" love him, and that Latins would like him well enough. (?)

...... So I don't think it's wrong to say that God acting through the Church formed the canon.

Church of all believers? Sure. Exclusively the Apostolic Church alone? I can't go there. :) If it's of any help, I COULD say that God led the Apostolic leaders to ratify what the Church of all believers (including those same folks) had already approved.

So when somebody asks what do you guys think the Church says about such and such, he's likely to get an answer which is a snapshot of the precipitate. Then if he even acknowledges the beauty of the crystal, he will still complain that it's all so lifeless, unyielding, and rigid.

But among beautiful crystals, I would say the Bible is like a diamond, and thus superior in the cases that "appear to be" different.

Now THAT's interesting. Heidegger certainly had a strong influence on Tillich and Macquarrie, FWIW. I think Catholics and Orthodox view him with suspicion.

The seriousness behind my frivolity is that Aquinas is making a comeback, and certainly at Thomas Aquinas College he is VERY big (surprise, surprise). My spy there tells me they thought John Paul II was sort of radical.

Church of all believers? Sure. Exclusively the Apostolic Church alone? I can't go there. :)

Well, of course the winners writ ethe history and all that, but at least the NT canon was settled by those whom WE think of as Catholic -- and in response to other canons suggested by those who definitely were not. I get the feeling that you guys think of Christians in, say the 3rd or 4th century as going off in all directions, while i guess I think of almost the same thing but also the gradual arising, in fits and starts, of a central something or other around which the Church was slowly "organized", if you'll pardon the over-statement.

But then, I have only seen Heidegger as described and quoted by a Reformer. I had the impression that the Orthodox "should" love him, and that Latins would like him well enough. (?)

I would like you to show me why would the Orthodox embrace someone as alien as Heidegger? I think your whole concept of Orthodoxy, after all this time on FR, is incredibly impoverished and dead wrong.

I will let Mad Dawg reply to this from a Catholic perspective.