A long time ago in a Roman Catholic galaxy far away, Mark Shea actually contributed material to a book put together by Robert Sungenis. Now....Mark Shea: Some Evangelicals think they have found Noah's Ark. This is the sort of story that gets nine-day-wonder play in the MSM, is trumpeted as "proof" of the Bible by Fundamentalists whether Evangelical or Conservative Catholic (you watch, it will show up on Bob Sungenis' site along with "Dinosaurs lived alongside man" and "Pyramids prove the flood" articles.
R. Sungenis: John, what can you expect from someone like Mark Shea? I mean, here’s a guy that actually advertises his ignorance and indiscretion right on the top of his own blog with the inane banner: “Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!” Do I need to say more? He thinks he’s being funny but behind every joke there is a pertinent truth. Mark Shea is actually telling us how his mind works. Most of his comments are just knee-jerk reactions that first pass through the “I must be as endearing and accommodating to the world as possible” grid in his brain, which are then spiced up for sale with his usual dose of sarcasm and off-color wit. So I’ll just follow Mr. Shea’s suggestion that what he says about me this time is just another one of his “stupid” comments.
As for the issue itself, Mark Shea, if you don’t already know, is of the school of thought that tries to divest Genesis of as much historically accurate material as possible. You’ll see this in his book Making Senses of Scripture in which Shea tries to tell us that we can minimize biblical history by turning it into little more than spiritual platitudes. Basically, Mark Shea is ashamed of much of what the Bible regareds as historical. Thus, he dismisses most of what occurred in the narratives of Genesis as fanciful accretions. Mark Shea wants his history to be palatable to what the world believes occurred in the past. Additionally, Mark Shea has made no in depth study of “Dinosaurs.
Source
Posts
5 comments:
Hey looka there. Mark and Bob 'r fightin'. Tee hee. Guess that proves there's nothin' to that ole Catholic stuff, eh?
Sheesh.
Hey looka there. Mark and Bob 'r fightin'. Tee hee. Guess that proves there's nothin' to that ole Catholic stuff, eh?
That's funny. I thought that was the very argument used to discredit Sola Scriptura. I suppose divisions only count when considered within the framework of Protestantism.
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2009/08/james-swans-beggars-all-blog-has-some.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/11/catholics-are-not-unified-on-inerrancy.html
The inerrancy example is an interesting one which I would be willing to address. But first, just to be clear, you are sticking by the contention that there is no difference in doctrinal clarity between having a living Magisterium versus having the Bible alone? Even in the comments to the link you provided you stated, "To my knowledge, Roman Catholics follow Trent's definition of Justification, and for the most part, they are unified in their misunderstanding of Justification." So as I pointed out in my own blog piece, both friend and foe alike understand what the Catholic Church teaches on justification--as well as on many other issues. Are you still stating that this does not differ from the situation faced by the Protestant Christian with respect to Biblical interpretation?
Post a Comment