The Fathers of the Church is a good introduction to the Fathers of the Church. Written from a Catholic point of view, the author gives some contextualThe Fathers of the Church is a good introduction to the Fathers of the Church. Written from a Catholic point of view, the author gives some contextual details about Fathers from the apostolic, ante-Nicene, Nicene, and post-Nicene eras, along with one to several excerpts from their works. In addition to giving a quick overview of what some of the fathers (and early Christian women) believed, this book does a great job helping to populate a Patristics reading list....more
Joseph Ratzinger, later a Cardinal, head of the CDF, and eventually Pope Benedict XVI, wrote this narrative of Vatican II. The book is short (a compilJoseph Ratzinger, later a Cardinal, head of the CDF, and eventually Pope Benedict XVI, wrote this narrative of Vatican II. The book is short (a compilation of four pamphlets) and gives an overview of what happened when, and what the major controversies were. As a historical, eyewitness account of the Vatican Council II, it was a worthwhile book.
However, if you want any details about the major controversies or issues of Vatican II, the debate over religious liberty, the liturgy, divine revelation, etc. look elsewhere. Fr. Ratzinger merely summarizes these issues in the most basic way. Further, Catholics of a more traditional bent may be annoyed with the young priest, who seems to eagerly embrace all sorts of theologically revisionist theories, and give credence to anything but the tradition of the Church. I kind of think that Cardinal Ratzinger or Benedict XVI, Bishop Emeritus of Rome, would be embarrassed by some of these words....more
The downfall of what could be an otherwise good history of Islam is Karen Armstrong's attempt to whitewash history. She repeatedly distorts history anThe downfall of what could be an otherwise good history of Islam is Karen Armstrong's attempt to whitewash history. She repeatedly distorts history and makes apology for Muslim violence throughout the centuries, while blaming Christianity (no stranger to violence) for introducing violence to Islam.
But first, the good: With a few minor exceptions, the first two-thirds of the book is a good history of the spread of Islam, and a reasonably engaging read. Some other reviews have criticized the readability of the post-Rashidun sections, but for a history text, it is excellent.
Unfortunately, the book makes unfounded and unsourced assertions, and is rather clearly biased. Armstrong's liberal Christian heresies are interjected here and there, which is rather annoying. The worst part, however, is the repeated assertion that Islamic fundamentalism is more characteristically fundamentalist than Islamic, and that (p149) "equally prevalent and violent fundamentalisms of other faiths" are somehow the same. Sorry, but I can't remember the last time fundamentalist Buddhists got a whole state to themselves (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) or Christian fundamentalists killed a few thousand civilians. Armstrong likes to quote the Fall of Jerusalem in 1099A.D. as Crusader brutality and, hilariously, the "first experience of the West" for Islam. Spain, Southern France, Sicily, and parts of Italy, which had been conquered or raided by Muslims centuries before, would like a word. She likes to talk about the slaughter at Jerusalem, but never mentions the slaughter at Constantinople. The truth is, that when cities fall without a surrender agreement, there is no organized end to the fighting, and massive numbers of civilians die, whether the attacker is Christian or Turk. It gets funny at times. In her attempts to portray Europe as a backward backwater, she brushes off the *88 year* occupation of Jerusalem and multi-century Crusader presence in the Holy Land as brief and unimportant. Aside from the mountain of evidence demonstrating at least the parity and probably the technological superiority of Medieval Europe over the Dar al-Islam, how could a tiny band of backward soldiers hold off the might of Islam, camped out in their 3rd holiest site, for nearly a century?
I'd give the book a pass. I'd suggest [Placeholder] instead....more
Hilaire Belloc writes on what he considers the five important heresies that the Catholic Church has faced. To me, the most interesting one was the claHilaire Belloc writes on what he considers the five important heresies that the Catholic Church has faced. To me, the most interesting one was the classification of Islam as a heresy of Christianity. It does fit his definition to an extent, and Belloc does acknowledge it is a different case from all other heresies, as it arose and exists completely outside the Church. I had always considered Islam to be a false religion growing on the basis on Judaism, but Mr. Belloc does make some compelling points, especially regarding Mary. If Islam was derived from Judaism, its veneration of the Virgin is unexplained. While it does seem simpler to assume that the single-person God, absence of Christian sacraments, and man-only Jesus religion of Islam came from Judaism, I don't know how much influence the Jews had in the area at the time. I do know there was a substantial Christian presence, and any Arian heretics still lingering would pass on a Christianity that could easily morph into Islam.
The other point of interest for me was the connection between the rise of Islam, the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of modernist errors. The connection is not perfect, however. Modernism arose by the completion of Protestant questioning and rejection of central authority, and the Protestant Reformation survived in nations with weakened central governments - where power was split between nobles and kings, and the nobles could use enriching (Protestantism allowed them to cease ecclesial property) heresy to fight the kings. Northern Germany went Protestant because the Ottoman-weakened Holy Roman Empire could not put down the nobles from Vienna. However, Protestantism, such as it was, would have still arisen in England in all likelihood, since England had a weakened central government unconnected with Muslim invasions. Additionally, there was the small matter of Henry VIII's marital redefinitions...
A final note of annoyance was Hilaire Belloc's ignorance of economics. I will allow him his opposition to capitalism, but to assume that communism only fails at eradicating poverty due to the tyranny of it's administrators is to be completely ignorant of that great information aggregating and distributing network known as the price system....more
Chris Kyle's autobiography is an interesting look inside the SEALs. As something of a gun nut, I enjoyed the discussion of firearms and equipment. HowChris Kyle's autobiography is an interesting look inside the SEALs. As something of a gun nut, I enjoyed the discussion of firearms and equipment. However, his apparent inability to recognize the right to life and human dignity of Iraqis was morally frustrating....more
I may have partially succeeded this time, but I really, really, really need to start reading Chesterton in a less scientific manner. If you read his wI may have partially succeeded this time, but I really, really, really need to start reading Chesterton in a less scientific manner. If you read his writings, especially Orthodoxy and Heretics as logical apologetics, he'll drive you (or at least me) up a wall and across the ceiling. A lot of his analogies make good sense, despite being factually wrong. If you take this writing as an attempt to communicate supernatural relationships by any means necessary, it's a wonderful explanation of why G. K. Chesterton thinks the Catholic faith makes a unique kind of sense....more
Loading...
