Historical Change & Comparisons With The Present

Here is another passage from the book from which I read on Friday; The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age (NY: Fawcett, 1994), pages 21, 23.

“The notion of historical change compels and vexes me. I am not so much interested in this war or that treaty or invention, although obviously these are critical factors. What I brood about has more to do with the phenomenology of everyday life. How is it that the world greets the senses differently–is experienced differently–form epoch to epoch. We know about certain ways in which the world has changed since, say, 1890, but do we know how the feeling of life has changed? We can isolate the more objective sorts of phenomena, cite improvements in transportation, industrial innovations, and so on, but we have no reliable access to the subjective realm. When older people sigh and say that “life was different back then,” we may instinctively agree, but how can we grasp exactly what that difference means? . . . . I am not in search of private sensation, but of a kind of understanding. I want to know what life may have been like during a certain epoch, what daily living may have felt like, so that I can make a comparison with the present. Why? I suppose because I believe that there is a secret to be found, a clue that will help me to solve the mystery of the present.”

The Crusades (Books & Resources)

The companion guide to the video series Christianity and Islam with Dr. Timothy George recommends the following books on the Crusades:

Belloc, Hillaire. The Crusades: The World’s Debate . Tan Books, Rockford, Ill., 1992.

Maier, Christoph T. Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century , Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Runciman, Steve. The First Crusade (abridged), Cambridge University Press, 1980. Orignially volume one of The History of the Crusades, 1951.

Discussion of Patristics

Follow the link below to hear an interesting discussion about the Early Church Fathers between Dr. Paul Wolfe and Dr. Robert Bernard.

http://www.lausdeoradio.net/mp3/July%201.mp3

History of Empire

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGicknVrkA&rel=1]

Irenaeus & Apostolic Succession

In class on Friday we talked about Irenaeus claims regarding authority and apostolic succession. Here is the introduction to an article I found this morning, along with a link through to the rest of it.

* * * * *

Taught by the Apostles
What is the truth about jesus? ask those who knew his earliest followers, said Irenaeus.
by Fr. John Behr

“The Church,” wrote Irenaeus, “having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believed these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed one mouth.”

From the beginning, Christians have been urged to hold on to “the faith delivered once for all to the saints” (Jude 3). Yet also from the beginning, some people had begun to misunderstand or misinterpret that faith. After the eyewitnesses and apostles passed away, believers could no longer go for answers to those who had laid the foundations of the church. In every great city, different teachers and leaders claimed to represent true Christianity, each asserting that they maintained the true faith, each appealing to a body of apostolic writings.

To support their doctrines, some Gnostics were claiming a succession of teachers going back to an apostle. In the face of such authoritative-sounding claims, how could Christians know that what the Gnostics taught was wrong and what their own pastor taught was right? Whom could they trust?

Despite these contending claims, even the pagan doctor Galen (129-216?) recognized that there was such a thing as “the Great Church,” which was clearly distinct from the multitude of sects. Irenaeus of Lyons was the first Christian leader to write a confident statement of the faith of “the Great Church” and explain why it could be trusted. He considered three things to be inextricably linked: Scripture (both the Old Testament and the apostolic writings), the tradition of the apostles’ teaching (the Rule of Faith), and the leadership of the church.

Passing on the true faith
Today we tend to think of apostolic succession in terms of the laying on of hands: The church confers an office on a consecrated bishop, who can thereby trace his authority back to the apostles. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican churches each claim their own unbroken line of ordained leaders. Most Protestants deny the importance of a continuous succession of bishops altogether.

But in the second century, apostolic succession meant something more simple. Two main concerns were at stake: What is the true faith? And how has it been passed on from the apostles to us? (Click here to read more…)

Bad Behavior has blocked 36 access attempts in the last 7 days.