Generally speaking, a history professor is given a certain unmerited sense of credibility based simply on the fact that they are a history professor. In fact, the more abbreviations that they have at the end of their name, tends to warrant more credibility.
Although this is given, it is not always deserved.
I'll expound on this with a situation I came across this morning.
In my first class this morning, World Civilizations II with Dr. G, we were on the topic of the Protestant Reformation (circa 16th century). We were discussing the causes, varying from political to socio-economic, and why they were relevant. In the process of discussing one of these causes, he brought up the fact that in the 16th century Mass was celebrated in Latin. He shared a very obscure opinion that to Catholics, the priest is our intermediary to God because we cannot go to God by ourselves.
My jaw literally dropped.
I can only assume that Dr. G is not Catholic himself so I will give him the benefit of the doubt here. However, with this inalienable credibility, there comes a level of responsibility. To be blunt, his assertion above is completely and totally false. Catholics do not view the priest as a "middle-man" between us and God and the Catholic Church does not teach that we cannot go to God/Christ on our own. To say otherwise borders on heresy.
Had Dr. G prefaced that claim with "In my opinion..." or "It is my understanding that...", there would be no issue. With the inclusion of that small disclaimer, it is very apparent that it is not fact and is merely his interpretation/opinion.
This class consists of mainly Freshmen and Sophomores fulfilling Gen. Ed. requirements. When this professor speaks, they assume he knows what he's talking about. For him to assert this as fact and speak as such, it is defamatory and shows gross misunderstanding on his part.
I don't know if this comes across as a mindless rant and that is NOT my intention. I was very upset when I heard this in class and felt it was necessary to share.
Also, it's worth noting that I will be emailing Dr. G to share my thoughts as well and if worth noting, I'll share on here too.
Dominus Vobiscum,
Drew

if he was speaking of a trend that did persist throughout the Catholic church leading up to and for hundreds of years after the East-West schism, especially in satellite Catholic cultures (Ireland for example), then your history professor is "historically" correct. if he meant that this lapse in theology is part of roman orthodoxy today, then of course that is not correct, technically. <3
ReplyDelete