Reviews for The Catholic Church story

The average rating for The Catholic Church story based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-04-19 00:00:00 Mike Davis WARNING: avoid this review if you are someone who believes that religion is one of the three topics that should not be discussed at the dinner table. Catholicism 101: Final Exam Required Text: The Catholic Church A Short History, Hans Kung, trans. John Bowden, Modern Library chronicles, 2003. Hereinafter referred to as “short history”. Part One Multiple-choice questions 1. According to the short history, who founded the Catholic Church? A. Why, Jesus himself, of course. Next question. B. Peter, who was entrusted to build the Church by Jesus and became the first Pope (see question no. 3). C. Paul, who founded the first churches in the Gentile world. D. His followers. Jesus did not found the Church, but from the earliest times, it has been a fellowship of those who believe in Christ. 2. Was Jesus Catholic? A. Isn’t that obvious? What the Catholic Church has always said and intended is what Jesus Christ himself originally said and intended, so in principle Jesus himself would already been a Catholic. If you are a Traditional Catholic, it is mandatory for you to choose this answer. B. Of course not! As everyone knows, he was a Methodist, or at least a sort of a Protestant. C. No. To call Jesus “Catholic” would be an anachronism, since the Church has not been founded yet during his lifetime. He was a Jew through and through. D. It is doubtful whether a Church which is: a. rigidly hierarchical; b. stubbornly patriarchal; and c. into celibacy as a condition for its priests could claim Jesus as its own, when his teachings are contrary to such principles. 3. The Catholic Church bases its authority on Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome. Does this claim have any scriptural or historical basis? A. Of course! The Church wouldn’t make such claims without clear evidence. It’s all there in my sixth grade Catechism book. B. No. Such claims have no historical basis whatsoever, not to mention scriptural. Pure Papist propaganda! C. Again, it’s an anachronism. There was no Catholic Church during Peter’s lifetime. D. We simply do not have any conclusive evidence, biblical or otherwise, that Peter was ever the first Bishop of Rome. And more importantly, there is also no evidence that the Bishop of Rome held any primacy over other Christian bishops during Peter's lifetime. 4. When did the requirement for priestly celibacy became mandatory in the Catholic Church? A. It has always been mandatory for priests to be celibate since Jesus and Paul were celibates. B. There has never been any such requirements prior to the Fourth Lateran Council of 1209. C. It was promulgated by Pope Innocent III in the 13th century, but was never actively enforced until relatively late in the 16th century. D. After the Second Lateran Council of 1139, when priestly marriages were regarded as a priori invalid, priests’ wives were regarded as concubines, and priests' children officially became the church's property as slaves, resulting in furious mass protest by the clergy. 5. The proceedings against the accused are secret. The informants are unknown. There is no cross-examination of witnesses, nor are there any experts. Accusers and judges are identical. Any appeal to an independent court is ruled out or is useless. These are the principles of which court? A. The Roman Inquisition during the middle ages. But it’s much better now, as heretics are no longer burned at the stakes. B. The Superior Court of Judicature during the Salem witch trials. C. The People’s Court of North Korea. D. The Holy Office; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the modern version of the Roman Inquisition. 6. How did the doctrine of papal infallibility came into being? A. It’s biblical and should not be questioned by any loyal Catholic. B. More Papist propaganda! C. It originated from the teachings of Thomas Aquinas and other fathers of the church. D. It was not officially promulgated until the controversial First Vatican Council in 1871, where its definition was challenged (unsuccesfully) by the majority of German and French episcopates. 7. What is the Second Vatican Council? A. An abomination. B. Finally, the Catholic Church recognized that Martin Luther was right. C. It dragged the church to the modern age, somehow. But clearly not enough was done. D. It is an epoch-making and irrevocable turning point for the Catholic Church. It integrated fundamental paradigms of the Reformation, the Enlightenment and modernity (anti-Semitism is not OK; there is salvation outside the church; democracy, human rights and science are good, etc.). Unfortunately, it was hampered by curia shenanigans and even now partially repudiated by reactionary church leaders. 8. So, what’s wrong with the Catholic Church today? A. Nothing’s wrong with it whatsoever. Perish the thought. B. Obviously, there’s something very wrong. But it is only to be expected from the Whore of Babylon. C. Humans err. Priests molest. But a few black sheep are to be expected in a flock the size of the church. D. The church is in trouble because it wants to roll back the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. The two main reforms that are desperately needed are those concerning the law of celibacy and the episcopal ministry. Without such reforms, the church will become a reactionary force that can't deal with modernity. Part Two Essay (approx. 100 words) In your own words, what do you think of the short history? It’s an interesting introduction to Hans Kung’s views, who like the current pope was a theological advisor to the members of the Second Vatican Council (his authority to teach Catholic theology had been rescinded since). He does a decent job covering the most salient points of the theological and institutional history. However, much of it is rather cursory, very opinionated (detractors would say biased) and could be confusing to readers who have no prior knowledge of the subject. He seems to be much more interested in airing his criticism (many of which I personally agree with) of the church’s theology. The book should really be called something like The Catholic Church: What’s Wrong With It. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Key: For all multiple-choice questions, D is the correct answer according to the short history.

Review # 2 was written on 2013-08-19 00:00:00 Gary Leach All religions are strange, but Catholicism is the weirdest of them all. I know this because I was brought up in the faith -- stumbling up steps, lighting candles, wobbling as I held a massive decorative Bible aloft just under the Reverend Father's eye during mass. Nothing can delete the religious impulse from a boy's brain more quickly than constant contact with nuns, combined with impressment as an altar boy. Yet Jesus of Nazareth remains an inspiring figure in my mind, and I thoroughly admire the message the Church delivers in liberation theology, and its moral opposition to unfettered capitalism. Which is all to say that I really dug this heartfelt, often nasty history written by a priest who's currently forbidden from teaching Catholic Theology. Beginning with the tricky question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth founded a church at all, Küng takes us on a wild cynical ride through darkness and light, stopping to point out forgeries and atrocities, while offering tributes to the geniuses who illuminate Church history (Augustine, Pope Gregory VII, Thomas Aquinas, Pope John XXIII, and Martin Luther -- whom he feels the Church is centuries behind in forgiving and removing from the list of excommunicated souls). As the history gallops toward us and overlaps with Küng's own life, his anger is kept just under a boil -- not only does he despise the Church's constant rejection and neglect of women's issues (bear in mind that Jesus had nothing to say about contraception or abortion), he sees the grim, slow-moving utterly masculine Church hierarchy itself as an affront to the Gospel values it espouses. In fact his stern conclusions that the Church is in love with the Middle Ages (rather than the more hardscrabble communal world of Jesus), and "fixated on stereotyped images women" seem to me bigger problems than Church could ever handle, unless a real reformer takes the helm (this book was written before Ratzenberg was anointed). So in effect this history is both inspiring (in focusing constantly on the "golden thread" of Jesus's teachings) and cynical. Father Küng will most definitely enter by the narrow gate.