LinearInfallibility (Main Forum)
by Leo Jack 
, Tuesday, June 02, 2009, 17:40 (423 days ago)
/I enjoyed the apoologetical arguments from Lacordaire and St. Francis de Sales. It is refreshing to read a defence of things Catholic from time to time.
Just what are the limits to infallibility is the central question. Certainly key dogmatic truths such as the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist are all truths that would fall within that range. Yet, there is the reality of a development of doctrine over the centuries as we come to re-interpret those truths in the light of newer insights made available by our Scripture studies, our deeper understanding of the world we live in.
Sometimes things we thought were part of the deposit of faith appear to need a major rethink. In today's church I think it is in this area that we are having most difficulty because of a neglect by the Pope, Curia and our bishops to consult and listen to the 'sensus fidelium'. The Pope can only teach infallibly that which is the belief of the Church. All too often today especially in moral matters, claims of infallible teaching on things like the ordination of women, on artificial contraception, on the fetus becoming a human person at the moment of conception, on the sinfulness of homosexuality are announced against a background of a ban on open debate and discussion within the Church on these matters. As a result, the real belief of bishops, priests women and men are not really known. This means the Church cannot express its belief, and the Pope can't be sure of the infallibility of his teaching. As one of the headlines screamed during the fall-out from Humanae Vitae in the 1960s, the Pope does not have a hot line to the Holy Spirit. He has to determine the belief of the Church by talking to his Bishops, and they too have to brief him after talking to their priests and laity.
The is the Problem of infallibility in the Church today.
lockedInfallibility
Not sure, Jack, that there is a "problem" with infallibility per se; more the claims made by exponents of centrist elements within the Church - thoise who want to preserve the Church as the last monarchy. However, even they cannot make more of the doctrine of infallibility than it allows. So, for example, the doctrine allows for the exercise of infallibility to be limited limited by reason and emperical evidence - no pope can declare something as true when it is self-evidently incorrect. He can't declare women to be a different species, or the world to be flat. Nor can a pope reverse any of the core teachings of the Church - such as the divinity of Christ or the resuurection. Moreover, the mere opinion of the pope is not infallible.
I should also point out, though, that infallibility does not depend upon acceptance or consent from the faithful; nor is a pope required to consult - but in practice this is not how matters have operated for the most part.
So while there are checks and balances on the Pope's exercise of the infallible magisterium, there is room for inadvertant error (which isn't to say that any past pope has erred in declaring something as a teaching to be held as true by all the faithful). Can anyone name a doctrine once declared infallible that has since proven to be unsustainable?
Ian J. Elmer
I am prepared to press onto the end along a path on which each step makes me more certain, towards horizons that are ever more shrouded in mist (Teilhard de Chardin)
lockedInfallibility
by Nicholas , Tuesday, June 02, 2009, 21:54 (423 days ago) @ Ian Elmer
Oh Ian! For God's sake, spare us.
lockedExcuse Me!
Nicholas,
Is there something wrong with posting another view for discussion? The point of my post was to open up further discussion. To be perfectly honest, Nicholas, I have real problems with the way infallibility is often presented and what doctrines and teachings are considered to be infallible. I wish we could quietly step away from the doctrine of infallibility.
I would be the first to poiont out that the doctrine of Papal infallibility was born in the age of revolt, was framed with a clear political purpose of Pius IX, and was forced through a Council (Vatican I) that was disrupted, incomplete and dominated by an unrepresentative majority of “Ultramontantist” bishops.
Moreover, the doctrine has no firm basis in scripture and owes far more to the political aspirations of Pope Pius IX than it does to the preceding history of tradition. It remains one of the primary stumbling blocks to ecumenism, not only with the Protestant Churches, but also and more significantly with the Orthodox whose pedigree in terms of history and apostolic tradition is equal to that of the Western (“Catholic”) Church.
However, we are stuck with the doctrine; it is now an article of faith. I beleive that we have to find a way to work with the doctrine in a positive way.
I have no doubt that the intent of Pope Pius IX and his supporters at Vatican I was to fortify papal authority and control by having infallibility declared as a doctrine of the Church. On the other hand, however, the language of the degree does not work entirely in favour of that intention. Indeed, the doctrine of infallibility serves as much to limit the power of the papacy as it does to buttress it. The Holy Spirit usually has the last laugh in these matters.
Cheers,
Ian
Ian J. Elmer
I am prepared to press onto the end along a path on which each step makes me more certain, towards horizons that are ever more shrouded in mist (Teilhard de Chardin)
lockedExcuse Me!
by Nicholas , Wednesday, June 03, 2009, 12:41 (422 days ago) @ Ian Elmer
Ian, thanks for your response. It is more than my impolite interjection deserved.
I don't accept the concept of papal infallibility at all and, like many others, see it as a very obvious social control -- a suppression of thought. As you have pointed out, there is not even the need to consult the church at large, ie take the sensus fidelium into account. It's simply nonsense.
So, I get very impatient when I hear the theological gymnastics that has to take place to make sense of it. 'Why bother?' was my thought. It seems such a waste of time. It's theology backwards -- looking for ways of explaining pronounced doctrine rather than doctrine emerging from 'current experience in conversation with long-held central truths'.
You say: 'However, we are stuck with the doctrine; it is now an article of faith. I beleive that we have to find a way to work with the doctrine in a positive way'.
To that I say: 1. We don't have to be stuck with it at all. I'm not. 2. Looking for ways to work with it just keeps this in-credible 'doctrine' alive. Let it die quietly, as it will if we walk away and leave it alone.
It's a dead parrot.
lockedExcuse Me!
by Francis , Kingsgrove, NSW, Wednesday, June 03, 2009, 20:48 (422 days ago) @ Ian Elmer
Ian.
I'm glad you made the "Excuse Me" response as it cleared things up re your post somewhat. However I wanted you to explain how it is that we are stuck with infallibility as an article of faith. Do I cease being a Catholic if I cannot agree with an "article of faith" that was somehow manipulated into the content of faith? Is it that Holy Spirit is defendant on deceit to tell us the truth?
Indeed, the doctrine of infallibility serves as much to limit the power of the papacy as it does to buttress it. The Holy Spirit usually has the last laugh in these matters.
Francis
lockedInfallibility
by PeterR , Wednesday, June 03, 2009, 12:12 (422 days ago) @ Ian Elmer
Ian,
When the Church takes the chains off theologians, they have a wonderful way of reinterpreting previous teachings in the light of later knowledge and changed circumstances. This is a good and necessary process I think.
In the light of evolution and the means of human reproduction, there is a bit of work to be done on the Immaculate Conception I would think.
The Assumption, centred around heaven up there, needs a bit of work too.
IMHO of course.
Peter
lockedInfallibility and History
HI Peter and Nicholas,
I think there is already some movement in regard to infallibility; or, at least, there was prior to recent papacies. Present centralising tendencies aside, history has already demonstrated that some teachings, even some that appeared to be solidly entrenched in scripture and tradition and taught at the highest levels, were not as well-grounded as the magisterium at the time believed them to be.
One need only think of John Henry Newman, whose argument in favour of the sensus fidei won him the title of “the most dangerous man in England”. Newman ended his days as a cardinal and his view of the indispensible role of the faithful found its way into the Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), which speaks of the “prophetic office” being fulfilled “not only through the hierarchy who teach in his [Jesus’] name and by his power, but also through the laity” (35).
Similarly, the Vatican II document on Divine Revelation even went so far as to say that very development of tradition and doctrine derives the “contemplation” and “study” of “all believers” (8). As a result of Newman’s dissent, the modern Church has come to the realisation that both hierarchy and laity are seen as “witnesses” whose combined efforts, thoughts, study and reflection lead to the sensus fidei.
This brings us to another point raised by Nicholas, which I would want to address. Nicholas, you suggest that we should just simply “walk away” from teachings that are no longer palatable to our modern sensibilities. While I will not venture into the whole debate about relativism, I would point out that theologians and biblical scholars can’t simply just “walk away” – even when we heartily disagree with certain teachings. I think that we have an important task to continue to dialogue with the wider church and the hierarchy on contentious issues. We should not lose hope.
All-too-often past dissent on the part of theologians has become present doctrine. The Church might still support slavery or anti-Semitism if it were not for the dissent of theologians. Similarly, we might note the names of many theologians, like Newman, but also Murray, Schillebeeckx, Rahner and, even, Ratzinger, whose work has been questioned at time, but who later became stars in the Catholic firmament.
The example of these former dissenting theologians suggest to us that no one can live in a hermetically sealed box oblivious to the experience of the Body of Christ as it has been lived; historical unconsciousness is not an option. The tradition of the Church should not be construed simply as a static body of eternal and immutable truths, which exist separate from other "truths" that we know from our experience in the "real world". And asking questions about Church teaching and their continuing validity or relevance is not, in and of itself, wrong. If anything it is absolutely necessary for the renewal of the Church.
All are called to wrestle with the tradition and its implications for difficult matters in our own time. At the very least, history should stimulate a bit of humility, making the church at every level less prone to pontificate despite natural inclinations to do so. The church moves and grows and learns through the ages and the Spirit, as John Henry Newman taught us, blows where it will. As I said above, all-too-often the Spirit has the last laugh.
Cheers,
Ian
Ian J. Elmer
I am prepared to press onto the end along a path on which each step makes me more certain, towards horizons that are ever more shrouded in mist (Teilhard de Chardin)
lockedInfallibility and History
by Francis , Kingsgrove, NSW, Wednesday, June 03, 2009, 21:28 (422 days ago) @ Ian Elmer
Thanks, Ian for this your response. It is definitely helpful and it does not seem to answer my "deceit and truth" question and one's status as a Catholic if one does not go along with such "Truth".
Hans Kung wrote in "Disputed Truth" (page 522) that a Christian Theologian has to find a way between relativism of truth and an absolutism. In reference to Cardinal Ratsinger's "dictatorship of relativism", Hans wrote that there is also the "dictatorship of absolutism" for many involved in the personality cult of the papacy. Would you comment on this?
I'm also interested in anyone who has read Hans Kung's book or paper: Infallible, An Enquiry, London and New York 1971. If so I'd like to read something about it.
Francis
lockedInfallibility
by AsOne , Tuesday, June 02, 2009, 20:16 (423 days ago) @ Leo Jack
I'm sorry Andrew Kania, but on any ordinary logical test, the church was either infallible every day since day one or it wasn't. But if its actions demonstrated fallibility at any time, it is not infallible.
You see, I don't think the Popes who presided over 350 years of the Inquisition were infallible.
I don't think the choice of Rodrigo Borgia as a Pope was an exercise in church infallibility.
Despite his commissioning of the Sistine Chapel, Sixtus VI's other actions hardly reflect infallibility.
lockedAlexander VI
The Church has been a bit rough on Rodrigo Borgia, later Alexander VI. Sure, he had a wife, a few kids and a few mistresses. For that he was always held up by such people as Dr. Rumble in his Radio Replies as an example of a "bad Pope."
But Alexander was very kind and generous to his family and its various extensions. He was, to coin a phrase, "committed to family values".
Not only that, he was very generous. He divided South America up in two, giving half to the Spanish and half to the Portuguese, without reserving any of it for himself.
On the other hand, those infamous Innocents, Innocent III and Innocent VIII, and countless others were they alive today would have been thrown in the dock in the Hague like Milosevich for their policies of ethnic cleansing, massacre, murder, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
No one seems to put them up as "bad" Popes. On the contrary, there is an impressive bronze statue of Innocent VIII in St. Peter's and Innocent III is put up as a great reformer and a saintly hero because of his pushing for celibacy for the clergy.
In the "bad" stakes, there had to be a lot of them much worse than this fleshy old Borgia libertine. He was only a little bit fallible.
locked
Infallibility
by Brian Coyne 
, LINDEN, NSW, Wednesday, June 03, 2009, 08:36 (423 days ago) @ Leo Jack
Ian, my sense is that the best expectation we can pray for about anything is for the wisdom and guidance — even subliminal and beyond our immediate understanding/comprehension — that might lead us to solutions. In the case of medical-type cures, there is still so little we understand about the inner workings of our own psyche. Our bodies and psyche do seem to have a phenomenal ability to self-regulate and heal themselves with the right input.
It seems to me a legitimate spiritual plea to pray for such guidance or input. I am extremely skeptical of the legitimacy of praying under some "great hairy arm theology understanding of God" for the Almighty to reach down and tweak the chemical or biological reactions, the bones or the sinew, the wind, the rain or the waves and cause direct changes in the temporal order.
On the wider question, I think this is an important topic Andrew has introduced for discussion. The question I asked about five years ago — and which I am still mulling on in a personal sense — is related to all of this: "what, precisely, are the core ideas, beliefs or truths we need to subscribe to to claim the right to call ourselves 'Catholics'?" My growing sense is that the core beliefs are actually quite minimalist and within Catholicism — and by that I mean authentic Catholicism not the hoop-jumping, anal retentive behaviours that some endeavour to sell us as "Catholicism" — we are, or ought to be, encouraged to be expansive rather than restrictive in our freedom to speculate and question. This is important theological speculation. Is our concept of God some picture of some Divine Judge or Bully who runs around trying to keep us in our place and treat us as twits and idiots/"poor banished children of Eve", or is our picture of some loving parental figure who is the Great Encourager of our creativity, enterprise and freedom to explore the nature of Creation and contribute to its unfolding?
![[image]](http://catholica.com.au/images/CatholicaICO_30x30.jpg)
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
locked
Why we need Infallibility
by ray(O) , Toowong, Wednesday, June 03, 2009, 13:27 (422 days ago) @ Leo Jack
Following from Brian’s email, I read Andrew’s article. Then I re-read it. It was not obvious what the point he was making. Perhaps I can be pointed to what I missed. Was he sitting on the fence???
However what I enjoyed reading was the references to where the concept of infallibility probably originated. Once again we can blame Martin Luther. Because he dared question the Church in Rome’s power, the hierarchy responded by asserting more strongly their claim to power. What better way than to introduce the concept of Papal infallibility. Rather than admit that the “Church” was wrong when it “sold” indulgences to raise money to prop up the pope and his organisation, lets increase our stranglehold over our “faithful” by making it even harder to disagree with the “church”.
I dislike the term “Church” being used to describe such things as the “dogmas of the church”, the “infallible church”. It makes the “church” to be this impersonal organisation without a face. In fact the Church in Rome as I like to refer to it, is a group of old celibate (or so they say!!) men perpetuating an organisation by the use of such terms as infallibility etc. They live in an unreal world surrounded by medieval customs of pomp and ceremony. And they have the hide to say they speak for God!!!!
Some of the comments seem to say that unless we have this concept of “infallibility” then
we take away that one straw that prevents the entire Christian message from falling into a morass of religious relativism
As if our Christian beliefs only depend on this term “infallibility”. The message of Jesus, in word and action is what makes our faith in God.
(I would like to refer to one of my previous posts on my understanding of a “religion” however Brian’s new setup does not have a list of all my posts as did the previous one (or I may have missed it!!!))
Part of what I said:-
What is Religion?
Religion is an organised system of
Doctrines of beliefs
Laws of moral behaviour
Rituals of worship
To embody and express faith in God
To expand further:-
Doctrines of beliefs to express and nourish faith in the mystery of God
Laws of moral behaviour to express and nourish love for others
Rituals of worship to express and nourish hope in the future.
Religion thus makes faith in God a fully human experience.
Religion is to assist us in our faith.
The important message is that religion is to assist us, not dominate us. What happens then is that religion becomes boring, enslaving, tyrannical and deadly, propped up by saying we are “infallible”.
When we discuss religion in terms of “infallibility” then I think we have lost our way.
together in Christ
lockedWhy we need Infallibility
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Wednesday, June 03, 2009, 16:01 (422 days ago) @ ray(O)
Ray,
I think Andrew was deliberately trying to avoid getting entangled in the debate about Papal Infallibility. That's one of the huge distractions. He's endeavouring to open a discussion on what claim we can make — or belief do we hold — regarding the infallibility of the institution. Collectively, for any organisation, are there not a set of beliefs, insights or truths that help define the organisation? I think there are but actually articulating them might be a more complicated matter even before we get onto the discussion of the infallibility of particular truths.
Some individuals want to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' as to what you have to believe in order to call yourself a Catholic, an Anglican, a Buddhist, a member of the Liberal Party or whatever. My sense is that Catholicism — at its authentic best — has had a minimalist approach on this. They basically boil down to the articles of faith we express in the Creed. But even there we run into a problem. I, for example, sincerely do believe in the Resurrection. I suspect the understanding of what 'the Resurrection' means in my mind might be a few light years removed from what some of the literalists think the term 'the Resurrection' means though.
Amanda and I were chatting about this last night. Neither of us were particularly attracted to the arguments of Lacordaire or Francis de Sales. They seemed more in the nature of self-serving propaganda that may have served their purpose in a by-gone era of ecclesial history. I think we (the collective Church) need to better articulate this stuff for the present age. I think all of us yearn for some set of truths that we can label in some way as 'absolute' or 'infallible' truths. This applies as much to humanists as it does to theists. We also yearn for some place, or authority structure, that can give us an assurance that some truths or insights are 'absolute' or 'infallible'. Again this applies as much to scientists as it does to theologians. Only the uneducated/unreflective don't care about this stuff, or can't get their heads around it and think it not important — or end up attaching the wrong importances to it all! The problem though is that for so many religion is a psychological (rather than spiritual) security blanket and they crave infallible infallibility like a baby craves its milk — and they throw tantrums if they can't get it. (Just see the behaviour of some of the Taliban portrayed on the SBS documentary last night on what is happening in Pakistan. There are Christians and Catholics who are only one or two clicks short of similar behaviours.)
If we can absent ourselves from the absurdities those elements want to introduce into the discussion every time the word "infallibility" raises its head though there are some fundamentally important issues here that Andrew is seeking to raise discussion about. In our specific context, I should imagine all (or most) in this place would agree that Catholicism is not merely some kind of social club. Similarly there is probably broad agreement that Catholicism also is not some sort of anal retentive endeavour that some try to make it out as. Between those two extreme though what, precisely, are the universal insights or truths that we would collectively believe in that define our community or church? The answer is neither "nothing is infallible" nor "everything is infallible" but something between those two extremes.
Once having established that proposition the other challenge is how does any large collective — be it church or scientific establishment — reach a consensus that "such and such a proposition" needs to be accepted as one of the Absolutes (or to use churchy language 'infallible truths') that we all need to subscribe to?
I think it was a courageous attempt by Andrew to raise what is an important discussion but to also try and steer it away from the emotionalism that a small element want to distract any conversation on this subject down.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedWhy we need Infallibility
by AsOne , Thursday, June 04, 2009, 22:22 (421 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Brian
Assuming we can separate the idea of the infallibility of the church as an institution from that of the papacy, how do we explain eg. the results of the inquiry into the way the institution dealt with many children in Ireland over many years?
lockedWhy we need Infallibility
by father andrew , Thursday, June 04, 2009, 00:04 (422 days ago) @ ray(O)
One person's infallibility is another person's heresy. The problem with infallibility that Dr. Kania's seems to suggest is the notion that such infallibility resides in a person and a particular office, an office by the way that is not found and cannot be proven to have existed in the Apostolic Church. Secondly infallibility is not an empirical state since we are dealing here with concepts of faith that by its very nature is not empirical. As Paul so beautifully puts it "we see through a dark glass"! Thirdly papal infallibility was not universally accepted in the Catholic Church and indeed was rejected by numerous theologians even up to the time it was proclaimed in latter part of the 19th century! The doctrine of papal infallibility was so abhorrent to some bishops at Vatican One they left Rome in protest notably the Archbishop of Utrecht which resulted in the Old Catholic Movement that exist to this day. As for Luther and Calvin they had no particular problem with ecclesiastical infallibility that is they did believe the collective witness of the New Testament as to the Trinity, Incarnation, Resurrection, Redemption, Judgement and final Consummation.
Needless to say the Eastern Orthodox Church never has and never will accept papal infallibility.
I personally believe that collective mind of the followers of Jesus from apostolic times and the affirmation of that collective mind is expressed in the Nicene Creed and that is my infallibility. Scripture and Holy Tradition has been and is created by the body of Christ and our understanding of that affirmation grows as we experience our humanity in union with the Divine.
Peace
Father Andrew Gentry
lockedBut, Andrew....
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Thursday, June 04, 2009, 00:57 (422 days ago) @ father andrew
But, Andrew, you were being pretty harsh on John Shelby Spong the other day. Self-evidently you think he is wrong (at least in some things). On what authority do you base your judgments that he is wrong? Is it merely just your word against his, your opinion against his opinion, or are both of you making some claim against some "higher authority" (either institutional, reason, the collective common sense, or educated expert opinion) for the propositions where you might find yourselves on opposite sides of the fence?
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedBut, Andrew....
The difference is that Andrew believes that the Holy Spirit is on his side, and John Selby Spong believes that the Holy Spirit is on his side.
I get a bit confused by all these claims of being inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit.
If they are all literally true, it seems He is on everyone´s side....umm...
Do you think he could be even on my side?
lockedJames, I think the HS is definitely on your side in preference to everyone else's. You speak logically, and rationally, and I suspect that's the same lingo the Spirit uses also LOL.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedSpong and the Holy Spirit
by DavidC , Thursday, June 04, 2009, 03:17 (422 days ago) @ James
James,
I don't know what Fr. Andrew thinks about the HS, but in all of Spong's work I haven't seen any indication of a claim that the HS is on his side.
In fact, such a claim would run counter to what Spong is trying to accomplish. Whether well or badly done, what Spong is trying to do is take all that we now know about the world at the time of Jesus and later, all we know of the composition of the scriptures and answer some questions:
What were the various authors of the scriptures trying to say?,
What language and literary techniques did they use to say it?,
To whom were they speaking?,
What were some of their presuppositions?,
and,
Given all the above, what can the scriptures mean for us today?
In other words, what he is doing is exactly similar in spirit, motivation, and technique to what scholars of any ancient corpus of writings do, to put themselves into the place of long gone others. Greek classicists studying Plato do not, at least in their publications, evoke the authority of the HS, and neither does Spong, as far as I can see.
Fr. Andrew can also have strong criticisms of Spong without relying in any way on the Holy Spirit. What I remember of Fr. Andrew's earlier critique though, was that Spong's treatment basically denatured Christianity, by taking all the juices out of it. But, Andrew can develop this for us if he wishes.
P.S., I suspect that what Brian wrote about the HS being on your side is probably correct. She likes honesty and logic and clarity. She told me so as I was writing this. 
lockedSpong and the Holy Spirit
Yes, David, you are right, I was pointing the figure at the wrong people. What inspired me (here we go again!) into writing it was this sort of thing appearing in this thread:
"Indeed, the doctrine of infallibility serves as much to limit the power of the papacy as it does to buttress it. The Holy Spirit usually has the last laugh in these matters." (Ian)
"Do I cease being a Catholic if I cannot agree with an "article of faith" that was somehow manipulated into the content of faith? Is it that Holy Spirit is defendant on deceit to tell us the truth?" (Francis)
"The church moves and grows and learns through the ages and the Spirit, as John Henry Newman taught us, blows where it will. As I said above, all-too-often the Spirit has the last laugh." (Ian)
And of course I could go back to many other threads and topics where people claim that She was working through John XXIII and Vatican II but not through the current oligarchs. And of course, the Pius X society believes the opposite.
Even B16 recently claimed that the Holy Spirit had him elected. I hope that wasn't an ex Cathedra statement of faith.
lockedSpong and the Holy Spirit
by Bill Dowsley , 'Wombeyan, NSW', Thursday, June 04, 2009, 14:04 (421 days ago) @ DavidC
"She likes honesty and logic and clarity. She told me so as I was writing this."
Another beauty, David. Thanks.
lockedBut, Andrew....
by father andrew , Thursday, June 04, 2009, 04:22 (422 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Jack Spong rejects any notion of anything being infallible. For him all matters of faith and doctrine are relative and it is the individual independent of community and the collective historical witness of the community that declares what is true and what is myth. For myslef I readily accept that there are times when intellect must bow to mystery and accept the collective witness of tradition and the teaching of elders as defined in such articles of faith and dogma as the Nicene Creed. Spong would never accept such a notion to do so would be to call into question the infallibility of the ego.
Peace
Father Andrew
lockedCommonweal -More Being: The Emergence of Teilhard de Chardin
by PeterR , Wednesday, June 03, 2009, 14:23 (422 days ago) @ Leo Jack
Commonweal has a subscription only article in its latest edition.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2568
I quote:
"What then is going on in the universe, and why should Catholic thought be concerned about it? Here, in a nutshell, is how Teilhard would respond.
"Traditional Catholicism first came to expression at a time when the universe was understood to be essentially static and unchanging. As a result of modern science, however, Catholic thought needs to understand that the whole universe, not just terrestrial life and human history, is in the process of becoming. Teilhard was one of the first scientists in the twentieth century to observe that the entire cosmos, and not just the biological and human periods, is a momentous, still-unfolding story. Theology therefore needs to be fully awakened to the fact that the universe is not just a stage for the human drama. Human existence must now be reconnected to the larger narrative of creation, as St. Paul had proposed (Rom 8:18-21) in Christianity’s foundational phase."
Peter
lockedInfallibility and BVM
by PatrickW , Wednesday, June 03, 2009, 14:52 (422 days ago) @ PeterR
edited by PatrickW, Wednesday, June 03, 2009, 15:11
I havbe been meaning to write something about infallibility for a while, but now only a brief comment. As Andrew Kania'a essay says, the church must be infalible. But we don't want creeping infallibility.
Only two pronouncemnts which conform to Vat.I - Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption into heaven. Both of these are hard for me to understand - both seem a bit anthropomorphic to me. {I once read something about the 5th mystery of the Rosary on the internet - I can't recall where - but Mary was being dressed in cloth of gold and all that. Fairy tales. I accept the doctrines but do not understand them. Like St Paul on resurrection - "Behold I tell uyou a mystery".
INfallible for me is the Nicene Creed in 325 with the addition in I think, 381 [at Chalcedon?]
I have heard of people saying canonisations were "infallible". I do not accept that. {As for JPII - they may do as they please, it is nothing to me.]
PatrickW
P S I quite forgot what I realy wanted to write about - I read lately in CathNews that there was a petition with 1,000,000 signatures to have a doctrine defined calling Mary Co-redemptrix. If there is any basis for this, it is, as they say, "inopportune"; but I cannot see that it either correct or necessary. Since Vatican II we have been, for the most part, trying to get away from"mariolatry", the honour being paid to Mary which is due to God alone. Hopefully, B16 wil not add this to his previous inappropriate comments.
[As a child, a long time ago, there was a little joke about a person praying before a statue of Mary and the infant Jesus. The statue of Jesus spoke to the person who replied "Quiet. I"m speaking to your mother". A silly joke, but it seemed to demonstrate the thinking of a lot of people.]
lockedInfallibility and core ideas, beliefs or truths
by George Haydock , Wednesday, June 03, 2009, 21:32 (422 days ago) @ PatrickW
"What, precisely, are the core ideas, beliefs or truths we need to subscribe to to claim the right to call ourselves 'Catholics'?"
I'm still of a view that this is not the right question, Brian.
I do not believe that being a Catholic is something that comes about as the result of subscribing to core ideas, beliefs or truths.
In any case, surely all ideas, beliefs or "truths" about God are symbolic, mythic, and metaphorical. They are a human attenpt to express something in human language that is beyond human understanding, let alone human language. Such attempts must surely be based on the cosmology and self-understanding of each age and thus are ultimately largely untranslateable from one era to the next.
So why are we so hung up on the formulations of ideas, beliefs or truths?
Is not to be Catholic to adhere to the "Communion of Saints" of time immemorial (or the "mystical body of Christ" as I believe it was once referred to)?
Mary MacKillop did not stop being Catholic when she was excommunicated by Archbishop Sheil.
Neither do I fail to be Catholic when my beliefs are expressed and understood very differently to those held by the martyr George Haydock, killed in 1584.
Tribesmen of the PNG Highlands do not fail to be Catholic because their understanding of their faith is enormously different from that of B16.
Brian, you do not fail to be Catholic when your ideas, beliefs and truths fundamentally differ from those of St Paul (as surely, they do).
And yet we are all united, not in our beliefs, but in Christ, who somehow embodies God's truth, the truth we all claim but cannot hope to define.
So the question you pose perhaps focusses on who is in, and who is out. Perhaps we can just try to welcome everyone in who wants to belong, as it seems the Christ we profess to follow is said to have done.
George Haydock
lockedInfallibility and core ideas, beliefs or truths
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Thursday, June 04, 2009, 00:46 (422 days ago) @ George Haydock
George,
I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. Christ also used some pretty harsh words, and what might become of them, regarding those who did not choose to join his club. Certainly the invitation seemed to be extended to all but it was not unconditional. If Catholicism (or any organisation) has a direction — i.e. it is leading to something, and is not merely some "social club" where we're all going to get on with one another and have a jolly nice party all running around being nice to one another or loving one another — necessarily (in a philosophical sense) there also has to be a wrong direction the individual, or, at times, the collective, might be travelling in. The creed is not merely some poetic and nice sounding collection of words that are without meaning or (and given the difficulties I alluded to in one of my earlier posts in this string) where we are free to attach any meaning — even a contradictory meaning — to what those words are really trying to convey.
Certainly I agree the invitation is extended to all regardless of race, gender, politics, sexual orientation, and whatever other division you care to think of, but the acceptance of the invitation is conditional. The BIG question we're essentially discussing is the one of "what are the core, or essential, conditions?"
Cheers,
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedInfallibility and core ideas, beliefs or truths
Well, I don't believe in any of the Creeds, Nicene or otherwise. But I was Baptized (once) Confirmed (once) received Penance and the Eucharist (heaps), just missed out on Holy Orders and Matrimony, but am now on the long slippery slide down into the pine box.
Modern medicine makes it statistically less likely that I am going to drop dead of a heart attack, and if I manage to avoid having my neck broken by the old man's lethal weapon, the ladder, I am going to live longer to then catch cancer. So I will have a lot more time and opportunity to end up being unwittingly or otherwise Extremely Uncted.
So, I already have notched up four out of the seven sacraments and I might end up with a fifth.
Does that make me a Catholic?
lockedInfallibility and core ideas, beliefs or truths
by George Haydock , Thursday, June 04, 2009, 08:06 (422 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Brian
I see that you are now saying that "The BIG question we're essentially discussing is the one of what are the core, or essential, conditions?" That is a different question to your earlier one "What, precisely, are the core ideas, beliefs or truths we need to subscribe to?" and I welcome this.
The Church cannot simply be something that is referenced solely to the "collective mind of the followers of Jesus from apostolic times and the affirmation of that collective mind . . . expressed in the Nicene Creed". To do that would ignore at least 1950 years of history.
Once you start looking at all of this, my conviction is that it becomes clearer
(a) that we really cannot claim to be certain about what was "the collective mind of the followers of Jesus from apostolic times" and that in any case it does not appear that there was necessarily any one "collective mind" among these followers.
(b) that the Nicene Creed was an imperfect formulation, buttressed by the apparatus of Imperial power and expressed in words and concepts that have little connection to those of today.
(c) that it is invidious if not impossible for us to try to decide which of those who have claimed to be the "followers of Jesus" in history were "true followers" and those who were not.
(d) that even if we restrict the "followers of Jesus" to the Catholic Church an amazing variety variety and diversity of beliefs is not only present today but even more so is a fact of history
So can I suggest that the core, or essential, conditions would be demonstrated by those people who identify with the great multitude of those now and throughout history who identify with the mission of Jesus (which was to bring God's good news to the people he encountered), and who try (in head, heart and hands) to be faithful to this mission and to all who have tried to follow it in their own places and times. This is an expansive, inclusive vision that does not have to concern itself with who is "out" but gathers together all who want to be "in".
George Haydock
lockedInfallibility and core ideas, beliefs or truths
by PeterR , Thursday, June 04, 2009, 10:40 (422 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
But,
What did these words expressing the faith of the early community mean when they were written?
How do we express those ideas today so that they have the same meaning to people within their own culture?
At either time period, what is the purpose of the ideas?
In "Jesus Symbol of God", Roger Haight raises these questions.
When he writes: "Third, reinterpretation of classical christology must bring these doctrines into conjunction with Christian life and spirituality," I think he raises the important issue.
Jesus of Nazareth revealed God to us in human living and invited us to experience God in our human living. Many have fits of apoplexy over the meaning of words in the expression of doctrines about Jesus Christ, but then head off to his mother when they want a bit of spirituality.
CHAPTER 10
Interpreting Nieaea and Chalcedon
This chapter will discuss the two most important christological docuements of the patristic period, the creed of the Council of Nicaea and the christological doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon. These teachings are taken to be authoritative and normative for Christian faith. But as classical christological doctrines, they have to be reinterpreted in every age. The goal of this chapter is to offer positive, intelligible, and constructive interpreetations of Nicaea and Chalcedon that are at the same time faithful to the intent of these doctrines.
Educated people today are at least implicitly aware of the need to be explicit in reinterpreting classical christological language. Indeed, no adequate christology can fail to include a critical evaluation of these doctrines. At least three issues relating to intelligibility separate the ancient language from our Christian life in postmodern western culture. The first is a changed worldview, one that is mediated by a scientific and technological way of thinking, and that contains data never imagined even a century ago. The body of knowledge that was available to the church fathers has changed. Methods of inquiry and understanding are also different. Just as patristic understanding was an inculturation of Christian beliefs into the Greco-Roman world of the time, so too must christological doctrine make sense to twenty-first-century culture with its science, technology, and cosmology.
Second, from a more explicitly theological point of view, and recalling reflections of the last chapter, the language of these doctrines appears fantastic. The technical language, which like all language carries an imaginative residue, seems to encourage an anthropomorphic view of the incarnaion of God in Jesus Christ. The identification of Jesus with the Logos, distinction of Logos from the Father, and the three-stage christology seem to justify speaking of a pre-existence of Jesus. In a historically conscious period, where Jesus refers to the flesh and blood figure who lived in Palestine in the first century, this language, when it is taken at face value, depicts a mythological fable. Christology must begin to lay the groundwork for a language that remains incarnational, but at the same time protects the human character of Jesus and avoids any caricature of incarnation.
Third, reinterpretation of classical christology must bring these doctrines into conjunction with Christian life and spirituality. This involves questions of human freedom in history, and how Jesus of Nazareth, the human being, stands in front of human freedom today in an offer of salvation. Christology cannot be approached from above in a way that leaves human beings merely passive before divine salvation. Such a view cannot communicate with an authentic Christian historical consciousness that is simultaneously an awareness of human freedom as responsibility for self, others, and the world.
These three broad considerations are offered as a general rationale for the need of a thoroughgoing reinterpretation of classical doctrine. Such a need is simply stated, but the project itself is filled with ambiguity: how can christological doctrine transcend the boundaries of the fourth and fifth centuries, engage the human questioning of the twenty-first century, and at the same time be faithful to the intentionality of the New Testament and these classic doctrines? No reinterpretation can possibly satisfy everyone. In this attempt to reappropriate these doctrines I shall deal first with the Nicene creed and then the christological doctrine of Chalcedon. In each case I shall briefly outline the well-known doctrine, offer a more explicit critique of it from a current standpoint, and propose an interpretation of its meaning that is both intelligible in today's world and consonant with the intentionality of the classical doctrines.
THE MEANING OF NICAEA
THE HISTORICAL DOCTRINE OF NICAEA
The Nicene creed is a reaction against Arian doctrine. It was most probably constructed on the basis of a local Syro-Palestinian baptismal creed into which key words and phrases were interpolated in order to negate the doctrine of Arius and his followers. Thus, ordinarily, one begins a historical explanation of the meaning of Nicaea with an exposition of Arian theology because "the principal aim of those who manufactured the creed was to call a halt ... to the Arian heresy. ... "
lockedThe language is fantastic!
by Ynot , Thursday, June 04, 2009, 12:54 (421 days ago) @ PeterR
the language of these doctrines appears fantastic
Ah Peter, your contributions are very informative, not to say nourishing.
I just wanted to share a little personal experience in this context. The other night my mind wandered onto the words of the Creed, wondering as I was about infallibility in church doctrine, and I came to the once familiar:
Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem..., et in Filium eius unigenitum...
I believe in one God, Father almighty..., and in his only-begotten son...
How odd, I thought. In the Blessed Trinity, the Father begat the Son!
And another phrase came to mind: genitum, non factum; i.e., begotten, not made.
What curious language. Not made i.e., manufactured, but begotten, biologically I suppose!
And that, not in time, but in eternity. How on earth (or in heaven!) did the Father beget the Son?
I can still accept, as I remember doing in seminary (though then, to gloss over the question of what "begotten" could possibly mean was easier than it is now, after I've begotten a couple of fine offspring meself), that the bishops of the time were thrashing around for some formulas of words that would not say what they did not mean. But did they say what they meant? And did they mean what they said? Oh well, in the end it's all mystery of course.
I still think that what I realised at the time of the bushfires (when people started asking Why did God do this to these people, why take this one and spare that one, and so on), that in speaking of god our biggest mistake is to say more than we know.
To conclude, my point is to agree that much of the language of our famous, core creedal statements sounds FANTASTIC.
'TonyL
"A post is a free gift, and it will go where it pleases."'
lockedAn infallibly simple solution
There is a very simple solution to this infallibility mess.
All B16 has to do is to get on his Cathedra and say that the doctrine of papal infallibility was just one huge mistake.
Those who have trouble with the doctrine, like most contributors here, will be over the moon, rejoicing in a new possibility of fixing the Orthodox and Reformation divorces.
And those traditional types who believe in papal infallibility will just have to accept that what B16 has just said binds them because it was an Ex Cathedra statement about the faith.
They may not like the about turn, but they will get used to it, like Christ not being born on Christmas day, like the earth going around the sun, like Adam and Eve not being literally true....etc. etc.
Simple...real easy.
lockedAn infallibly simple solution
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Thursday, June 04, 2009, 01:44 (422 days ago) @ James
Listen, James, get one thing straight will ya? They couldn't give a stuff whether Jesus was born on Christmas Day or not, or whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa — the literalness of Adam and Eve is slightly more problematical but they can live with a little bit of heresy on that — but you left out the vital issues which "they" think God, the Pope and the entire Magisterium have pronounced infallibly ........... what are they? ............ the ban on artificial contraception; and the total ban on discussion about whether women can be considered as priests. They are THE litmus test issues of infallibility. If you accept the ban on artificial contraception as "infallible truth" given by Almighty God himself you'll be in good standing — and it doesn't really matter in "their" eyes what else you believe.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedAn infallibly simple solution???
by jan , Thursday, June 04, 2009, 11:37 (421 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Thanks Dr Kania for bringing this integral subject to us even though it has thrown me into a complete dilemma; taking my head firmly out of the sand and making me contemplate - yet again - the foundation of what I claim - with warts 'n all - to belong to.
What's more it will stop us 'huffing 'n puffing' about so many threads and get us to the real nitty-griity, ie infallibility both of the Catholic Church and of the Pope - there are two distinctions is there not?
So I must face this core belief that Jesus was indeed the 'Word made Flesh (John 1:14)' the source of Divine Revelation - everything else can be teased apart and reinterpreted, but was 'Jesus the source of Divine Revelation' I keep asking myself and I have to answer 'yes' to this - followed sharply with 'do I then believe this makes him God?' and to this I must say "no" - for many reasons uppermost of which is that, for me, we cannot neatly define God in this way.
It may sound pathetic, but it doesn't matter to me whether Jesus were actually God or not: it is all about what he revealed. Were John to say 'Knowledge made Flesh' it would make more sense to me, and bring it more into the 21C, for wasn't Jesus showing us that we are all 'knowledge made flesh': as Paul said "The Spirit we have received is not the World's spirit but God's Spirit".
However, it is the 'Divine Revelation' that I hang my hat!
Dei Verbum n.2 of the 2nd Vatican Council states: "this plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation"
The basis of me continuing to be a Catholic is to believe in Jesus' whole life being one of Divine Revelation within which I participate. This is the crucial infallible statement laid down by the Church - we can debate and define every other dogma but this is my 'simple solution'.
Jan
lockedDevelopment of understanding of revelation during Vatican II
by PeterR , Thursday, June 04, 2009, 12:12 (421 days ago) @ jan
3. The first Schema on the Bible
In November began consideration of the Schema, or discussion document, on the Bible. It was called De Fontibus Revelationis, by the use of the plural in the title itself accepting the two sources of Revelation, namely Scripture and Tradition, as two separate sources of knowledge of God.
Discussion in the Council Chamber was, of course, still in Latin, with rare exceptions. Right from the beginning Maximos IV, Patriarch of Tyre, insisted on speaking French, pointing out that Latin was not the language of the Church, only the language of the Western Church. The Schema was presented by Cardinal Ottaviani, as President of the Roman Congregation for Doctrine. (He had been absent from the Council for two weeks, upset at having his microphone switched off when he had spoken for nearly double the maximum time allotted for speeches.) He was supported by two other Italian Cardinals who were well known for their conservatism, Ruffini of Palermo and Siri of Genoa. When discussion started, the document was savaged. The Melkite (Greek) archbishop Neofito Edelby pointed out that the whole approach was dominated by the polemic of the Reformation in its opposition to Luther’s principle of sola scriptura. Bishop de Smedt of the Church Unity Commission denounced it for triumphalism, clericalism and legalism; it was backward-looking and defensive. Bishop Charrue of Namur compared it to the Church’s stance on Galileo for its refusal to accept the findings of modern science. Bishop Hakim of Akko (=Acre in Palestine) attested that the division into two sources of tradition had never been accepted in the eastern Church. When these criticisms were reinforced by the big guns of Cardinals Liénart, Frings, Alfrink, Ritter (of St Louis, Missouri) and Bea (head of the Church Unity Commission, formerly head of the Roman Biblical Institute, so a noted biblical scholar), the Schema was withdrawn, to be revised by a special commission jointly headed by Ottaviani and Bea. The head of the English Benedictines, Abbot Christopher Butler, also worked as a member of the panel.
4. The revised Schema, Dei Verbum
A New Focus
When the new and revised Schema came to be debated in September of the following year, 1964, it was found to have an altogether different focus. The focus was no longer on the biblical revelation of a package of intellectual truths, as though revelation was primarily a set of propositions about God. Revelation was no longer a matter of the unveiling of truths; it was a matter of the acceptance of a gift. Revelation is seen as a divine act of self-revelation, God’s own self-disclosure, made not only to the mind but also to the heart. It is therefore God’s self-giving, for in biblical language to ‘know’ is used of a warm and personal relationship, often including sexual knowledge (when Adam ‘knew’ Eve, Gn 4.1, 17, 25, etc). ‘I love you’ is more than a statement of fact; it is a declaration. It involves a personal commitment. So the revelation in scripture is the offering or communication of a person, the self-giving of a person, demanding a response in faith. God ‘in his great love speaks to humankind as friends and enters into their life, so as to invite and receive them into relationship with himself’.The first quotation from scripture, in the opening sentence, is about having fellowship with God (1 Jn 1.2-3), and the whole emphasis of the first chapter is on God speaking to humankind as friends, inviting them into a relationship with God. Revelation is a matter of life and hope, not of understanding truths, for from the beginning God ‘roused our first parents to hope for salvation by the promise of redemption’. The fullness of revelation is in Jesus, not only in his teaching but in the total reality of his presence, his symbolic acts and above all his death and resurrection. Again, it is getting to know a person rather than a set of facts. The human response is not assent to doctrines but acknowledging God and ‘free self-commitment to God’. The reception of revelation is not an intellectual experience so much as a life-experience, an entering into a partnership or an ‘uninterrupted conversation’ with God.
locked
