FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Consequences of Liberal Theology - Michael Voris
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Good talk by Michael Voris.

Why is it being called "liberal" theology? Theology is either orthodox, or not. If it's not, it's heretical.
When thinking about these sorts of problems in theology, I always consider this quotation from Henri de Lubac:
Quote:This we know: the Church, guardian of revealed truth, assures for us in every age the unfailing preservation of faith, pure and complete. Every age contributes more or less felicitously its efforts to express the meaning of that sacred deposit, with explanations adopted by the magisterium, and sometimes actually solemnly ratified by it. Not everything that results from all this theological labor is, however, destined for such ratification. Not everything can be canonized. Nor is everything equally sure, equally permanent. "In the development of dogma, acquisitions and exclusions are permanent; in theology there is room for a mass of hypotheses, probabilities, controversies"--of stumblings and recoveries. "Extravagant branches" sometimes grow upon the tree. History is always there, sometimes of quite recent date, to remind us of this. I cannot therefore share the superstition to which some theologians seem so subject that praises "modernity" as such--whatever their precise definition of the term may be.
Thanks for posting this.  I didn't know that St. Athanasius basically had the laity on his side.  I thought it really was 'Athanasius against the world' (although I did realize he would've needed help from someone, being on the run so much).

I've been wondering why some American bishops are suddenly fighting the promotion of contraception, i.e. Obamacare.  They've been promoting contraception indirectly for so long, and from what I understand, the staff and faculty at Catholic universities like Georgetown already enjoy that coverage in their insurance plans (at least, that's what Sandra Fluke said a few months ago).  Is Obamacare just the straw that broke the camel's back, or is it really because they resent having the President tell them where and how to do their 'charitable works'?  Or may I be more hopeful and think it's because they're seeing the error of their ways and converting now?  That would be ideal.
Isn't it a bit problematic to say the "development of dogma?" It could just be semantics, but still.
(05-21-2012, 03:59 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't it a bit problematic to say the "development of dogma?" It could just be semantics, but still.

I've never heard of "development of dogma", but I've heard of "Development of doctrine". "Evolution of doctrine" however was condemned at the First Vatican Council, I believe.

This may help: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop

Not trad I know, but could still be helpful.
(05-21-2012, 03:59 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't it a bit problematic to say the "development of dogma?" It could just be semantics, but still.

I don't see why. It seems to me that the term simply refers to the Church exercising her teaching authority through time. Although, Lubac does mock more progressivist notions of development:
Quote:In regard to the redemption, Canon Jean Riviere, the author of a series of excellent historical works, once appealed to the "law of development" to show that while the dogma itself clearly remained unchanged, "theological reflection worked gradually to translate it into ever less inadequate concepts." What this meant in the concrete was that a direct development would, by a sure progression, lead to a conclusion known in advance to the author. Hence, all the traditional elements which that theory could not accomodate must be ultimately rejected as "incurable archaisms."
I liked the second part of this perhaps even more:

http://www.realcatholictv.com/premium/in...12-05-20-a
(05-21-2012, 12:57 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]When thinking about these sorts of problems in theology, I always consider this quotation from Henri de Lubac:
Quote:This we know: the Church, guardian of revealed truth, assures for us in every age the unfailing preservation of faith, pure and complete. Every age contributes more or less felicitously its efforts to express the meaning of that sacred deposit, with explanations adopted by the magisterium, and sometimes actually solemnly ratified by it. Not everything that results from all this theological labor is, however, destined for such ratification. Not everything can be canonized. Nor is everything equally sure, equally permanent. "In the development of dogma, acquisitions and exclusions are permanent; in theology there is room for a mass of hypotheses, probabilities, controversies"--of stumblings and recoveries. "Extravagant branches" sometimes grow upon the tree. History is always there, sometimes of quite recent date, to remind us of this. I cannot therefore share the superstition to which some theologians seem so subject that praises "modernity" as such--whatever their precise definition of the term may be.

Great quote and always pertinent. Who was Henri de Lubac? Was he a theologian? I've never heard of him.
(05-21-2012, 05:33 PM)Magdalene Wrote: [ -> ]I liked the second part of this perhaps even more:

http://www.realcatholictv.com/premium/in...12-05-20-a

Well then, I may have to get a subscription again. Because that is for subscribers only. Could you provide a bit of a thumbnail of what the discussion was in part II?
Pages: 1 2