Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Peter Birch.
Irish Theological Quarterly | 1962
Peter Birch
One of the very interesting features of modern education is the extent to which it is coming to recognize its dependence on the home. Whatever defects there were in the past, and however much the home may have been ousted from its primary and proper place in education by the school, it is now recognized by educators that the home must be an active partner in their work. &dquo;The new ideal of education implies a degree of co-operation between home and school undreamt of in the past&dquo;.’ It is no more than sensible, therefore to make full allowance for the home in educational work.
Irish Theological Quarterly | 1960
Peter Birch
This sketch of the beginnings of a movement stemming from the Aetemi Patris only serves, however, as an introduction to a study of M. Blondel and P~re Laberthonni~re. Their lives covered the period of the struggle against Modernism and, in different degrees, they were involved in its fortunes. We are now far enough distant from the controversy to make a more objective study of the participants and of those wrongly accused in an atmosphere in which deceit and concealment were regular weapons of defence for the adversary. If some were wrongly suspected it must be remembered in extenuation that the guilty often retained officers which, by their betrayal of the faith, they were no longer fitted to fill. Not only was there a Modernist attitude tovards revealed truth and its authorized custodians but there was a Modernist ethic which did not shrink from double-dealing. We need not be surprised, then, if some who wished no more than an orderly progress in ecclesiastical studies or an adaptation of the apologetical method to the needs of the age, met with discouragement. We have only to record the tension that prevented cordial relations between Newman and Manning. M. Blondel belonged to the group which favoured a new approach to the unbelief of his day. But he yielded to none in his acceptance of the traditional rational proofs. With him the rrrethode de immanence was a preliminary stage designed as a sort of softening-up process, nor was it discoloured by any taint of Pelagianism. His personal orthodoxy was vouched for by Cardinals Deschamps and Mercier and even by Pius X. These all admitted the usefulness of his approach to unbelievers provided the subordinate role of the method was acknowledged. The position of P~re Laberthonni6re was different as many of his expressions were extreme, incautious and unorthodox. They certainly merited the censures which they provoked. This is no reflexion on the moral character of their author
Irish Theological Quarterly | 1959
Peter Birch
of our educational efforts can be assessed only at death, for if we accept life as a preparation for eternity, then its final product can only be estimated in reference to the hereafter. But obviously we cannot wait so long to assess our efforts. At every stage in life we must be able to satisfy ourselves that what we are doing is good, and the only way we can do so is to examine whether our work is contributing to the object we propose, whatever that may be. To determine the object is therefore vitally important. We must be clear that what we aim at is good, and when we
Irish Theological Quarterly | 1958
Peter Birch
Since the spring of 1947, when the first cache was discovered by a shepherd in a cave at Qumran, it seems that the Dead Sea area has become alive with people scrambling up and down cliffs, searching patiently every nook and cranny in the expectation of finding new fragments of scrolls. Public interest in the historical and religious significance of the newlyfound manuscripts was awakened from the very beginning, and both trained scholars and popular writers have produced a vast literature on the subject. In the Press, on the Radio, in journals and in books, the question was posed : does Christianity owe its origin to the sect of Qumran, and, in particular, is Jesus the re-incarnation of the Teacher of Righteousness ? In some unscholarly publications the theory was defended that the dogmas of Christianity may have developed naturally out of the religion of the sect, that Jesus may well have found prepared for him, by the teaching of the sectaries, a special messianic r81e which he accepted. The present book is by a noted Scripture scholar, who was one of the first to have seen and identified any of the scrolls. It relates again the story of the sensational discovery, and it discusses the nature of the finds, the identity, views and organization of the sect, and the relation in which its teachings stand to Christianity. It notes the many parallels between the Qumran institutions and beliefs and primitive Christianity, such as common property, ritual immersion, a sacred meal, certain moral and doctrinal teachings. Fr. Van der Ploeg concedes that there are many resemblances, but clearly shows that there are also essential differences. For example, with regard to the sacred meal, he notes that the New Testament links the celebration of the Eucharist with the death of Christ, while there is no evidence that the common meal of the sect was sacramental. The work is valuable for its clear survey of the Qumran Community and its ideas, and especially for its straightforward evaluation of the significance of the scrolls. He who reads it must surely be convinced that Qumran does not prove that there was a Christ before Jesus.
Irish Theological Quarterly | 1956
Peter Birch
important point, for the little wall m1 is the most important material testimony to care bestowed on this place directly under the “ trophy of Gaius ” before the erection of the trophy. However, these are matters which, as has already been suggested, can hardly be adequately discussed even within the limits of a book. If they are to be discussed at all they must be discussed exhaustively. I would, however, venture to suggest that the authors, in their anxiety to avoid going beyond the evidence, have sometimes been over-cautious in their hypotheses. To their conclusions, that “ although it is not certain that the “ aedicula ” (the “ trophy of Gaius ”) marks the site of an earlier grave, the hypothesis that it did so explains much that is otherwise obscure,” they might, I think, have added that the hypothesis that it did not, raises so many formidable difficulties that it is almost impossible to entertain it. Their further conclusion, that “ although there is nothing to prove that this grave was that of St. Peter, nothing in the archaeological evidence is inconsistent with such a conclusion” might have had its emphasis somewhat changed by recalling the two principal difficulties alleged against the identification of the grave with that of St. Peter, First, it is suggested that it is unlikely that the site of an unmarked grave would be remembered exactly over a hundred years. This assumes that the grave was in fact unmarked, for which there is no proof. Indeed, what has been suggested above concerning the interpretation of the walling m1 would seem an argument of some force against such an hypothesis. Secondly, doubts have been expressed as to whether Peter’s body could have been recovered for burial in the circumstances of the Neronian persecution. Again, there is no real evidence for such a suggestion, and account must be taken of the strength of the Christian conviction concerning the resurrection of the body, a conviction strong enough to induce the faithful to undertake formidable, but by no means insuperable risks. These few pages are a very inadequate summary of some of the points raised by this very valuable book. Others have not even been mentioned, such as the still-unsolved problem of the “ cult-centre ” of SS. Peter and Paul on the Appian Way, or the subsequent history of Constantine’s basilica, a fascinating story in its own right. Enough has been said, I trust to show that this scholarly, well-documented, sober introduction to the story of the excavations under St. Peter’s basilica will be a boon to all English-speaking people who wish to have an informed interest in what was discovered there. PATRICK J. CORISH
Irish Theological Quarterly | 1954
Peter Birch
it be said that the existents attain the presence through the mediation of man ? Heidegger, like many of the philosophers labelled Existentialist, never really gets outside the Hegelian way of thinking, and consequently inherits the Hegelian difficulties, the difficulties arising from the fact that man is after all an existent among other existents, that man is body as well as mind, existing as well as ‘ I ex-sisting.” Presence and existence are conceived too flatly as if all existents attained presence in exactly the same way. But apart from these difficulties which are the legacy of Hegelianism, and apart from the general difficulty raised by M. de Waelhens, the Pre-Socratic doctrine (or the doctrine attributed to the Pre-Socratics), which has such an important place in this latest work of Heidegger, is not without special difficulties. What is meant by saying that things have reality before they exist and after they exist ? How are we to conceive this reality ? Some of the Pre-Socratics came to see Nature as containing all things within it as existing: on this theory all reality is enclosed by the present. If existence and presence is the summit of reality, and if all reality is measured by it, it follows that existents can have reality only by being somehow within the present. And, in effect, it was to the definition of this “ somehow ” that Aristotle applied himself when working out his conception of the “underlying nature ” as potentiality. The path which Anaximander followed can lead only to the path which Aristotle follows. Perhaps it is this path that leads out of the forest ? How are we to understand this mediation ?
Irish Theological Quarterly | 1954
Peter Birch
A characteristic of modern ways of thought is the condemnation of authority, intellectual or moral, as an undue interference with the liberty of the individual.1 It is popularly supposed that there is a fundamental irreconcilability between freedom of thought and authority. The demand for freedom of thought sprang originally from hostility towards religion and has always been associated with it.2 The only authority that was acceptable was that of Science,3but more recently that has fallen into disfavour, and in its stead is now placed the opinion of the community. Here, too, significant changes are taking place, for the opinion of the community was to be arrived at by compromise on a sort of agreed basic minimum, but now it is asserted that social action constitutes thought and determines what is right to hold or believe. Ultimately this must lead to “ institutionalization ” and planning by state authority, and to the demand for dictatorship in matters of the mind which is a denial of freedom of thought. “ Man does no longer want to accept his character as a creature, to admit the fundamental religion towards something which is above him. He refuses to submit to obligations which are not erected by his free commitment. . . . The modern man no longer wants to admit the r61e of Providence, but he wants to determine everything himself . . . Equally he claims true authority in community life, and refuses to admit any authority which he himself has not arbitrarily installed, which is not a creation of his
Irish Theological Quarterly | 1960
Peter Birch
Irish Theological Quarterly | 1960
Peter Birch
Irish Theological Quarterly | 1959
Peter Birch
