Replies

This may be hard to believe, but also the Vatican is too humble and too aware of its proper role to write a theological rule book or authoritative text.

They have already done it, it is called a catechism.. that Catholics are bound to accept on faith as true and accurate and speaking for God..no humility there :)

The problem is the Catechism uses proof texts , sometimes out of context.. that a clearly written systematic scriptural Theology text or even a solid commentary would not allow for..

MD, I think that have not done it because they can not and keep much of what they call doctrine

The hatred of non-Catholics is like sweat. It gets in their eyes and blinds them.

I am so angry at this post that I have to struggle to be civil. Let me explain why. YOU asked why the Magisterium did not write a book of systematic theology. I answered.

Your retort to my answer reveals (to me) that you do not know what systematic theology is or what a catechism is or what the duty of the Catholic to the catechism is.

Ant, not knowing, you present it inn the most inflammatory (and ignorant an incorrect light.)

I do not know of any reason to take the catechism as Infallible. I do think that it is the best current source of what we think and teach, but we do not claim everything we teach and think is infallible. SOME, yes. ALL, know.

If this is news to you, then once again, darn it, you have displayed an incorrect understanding of the Catholic Church and done so in a needlessly confrontative manner.

I simply do not understand why your side does this so much. It would seem to me that the NORMAL and REASONABLE course would be to deliberately and CALMLY find out exactly what the case is. THEN, having assured oneself that passion and so forth had not corrupted the 'fact-finding' part of the process, THEN and only then could one proceed to judgement.

But you do not know:
- the difference between a catechism and a work of systematic theology

- the belief the faithful are considered to owe the catechism>

And then, having accused us of publishing an authoritative work of systematic theology in the Catechism, you turn around and agree with me that the Magisterium has NOT published a work of systematic theology~!

So which is it?

Or did you just make this bogus concession as a lead in to a contemptuous remark that "they" (And WHO EXACTLY are 'they'?) cannot "keep much of what they call doctrine."

The problem is the Catechism uses proof texts, sometimes out of context.. that a clearly written systematic scriptural Theology text or even a solid commentary would not allow for..

The Catechism isn't and isn't meant to be systematic theology (or a commentary for that matter) -- it's a summary of what the Church teaches. (Not sure what a "systematic scriptural Theology text" might be.)

And it doesn't use "proof texts" in any generally accepted understanding of the term. The "proof text" is whipping out one or several Scriptural verses and letting them stand alone (apparently deliberately ignoring the other Scriptural verses that offer a different or even apparently contradictory understanding), whether they're on point or not (anyway the way they're used on FR!). I believe historically this use of the proof text came in with Protestantism and -- in serious circles, at least -- was dead by the 18th century, because of its serious drawbacks, among them the "bumper sticker" approach to theology they represent and the incessant battles of the "dueling proof texts" that advanced no argument.

Adducing Scriptural sources in the course of an exposition or argument is a different thing altogether.