Dealing with apparent contradictions in Church teaching
#91
(08-19-2012, 09:54 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(08-19-2012, 09:49 AM)TrentCath Wrote: ... it does not matter whether the popes meant to teach error, it suffices that through erroneous statements and actions, many of which are unexplainable unless they were in error, they have done so.

In each act there is an objective and subjective aspect. This is expressed in Thomistic philosophy as a material and formal element. Both matter, and if one taught only materially in error, then it would be handled in regarded in a much different way than formally. So it does matter what Popes meant. It actually matters a lot.

Not for the purposes of them teaching error it doesn't, it remains censurable. The question of whether they were actually in error is different, here it suffices to show that they taught it.
Reply
#92
(08-19-2012, 09:49 AM)TrentCath Wrote: I don't think your views were misrepresented at all, deductions were made from your odd statements, deductions which in my view still hold true.

To say of my views "This is post-Modernism and Deconstructionism." as Walty did, is to misrepresent them.  That is not my position.
Reply
#93
(08-19-2012, 09:54 AM)TrentCath Wrote: I agree however, you are begging the question. The orthodoxy of his teaching is in question, so you can't simply claim it vindicates him. Nor do I find the argument he was of sound mind convincing, as for being a lover, his many errors and odd theology say otherwise.

TrentCath, you are rash, myopic, obstinate, prideful, and unwilling to listen. Even if you were materially right, you are formally wrong. Take that to the bank. And leave the ad hominem thing, since I have tried already to reason with you. Peace!
Reply
#94
(08-19-2012, 10:01 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(08-19-2012, 09:54 AM)TrentCath Wrote: I agree however, you are begging the question. The orthodoxy of his teaching is in question, so you can't simply claim it vindicates him. Nor do I find the argument he was of sound mind convincing, as for being a lover, his many errors and odd theology say otherwise.

TrentCath, you are rash, myopic, obstinate, prideful, and unwilling to listen. Even if you were materially right, you are formally wrong. Take that to the bank. And leave the ad hominem thing, since I have tried already to reason with you. Peace!

But even if I was all of these things it still wouldn't follow that you were right, asserting them merely makes you and your argument look weak.
Reply
#95
(08-19-2012, 10:00 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-19-2012, 09:49 AM)TrentCath Wrote: I don't think your views were misrepresented at all, deductions were made from your odd statements, deductions which in my view still hold true.

To say of my views "This is post-Modernism and Deconstructionism." as Walty did, is to misrepresent them.  That is not my position.

That is what you say and probably what you believe.
Reply
#96
(08-19-2012, 10:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-19-2012, 10:01 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(08-19-2012, 09:54 AM)TrentCath Wrote: I agree however, you are begging the question. The orthodoxy of his teaching is in question, so you can't simply claim it vindicates him. Nor do I find the argument he was of sound mind convincing, as for being a lover, his many errors and odd theology say otherwise.

TrentCath, you are rash, myopic, obstinate, prideful, and unwilling to listen. Even if you were materially right, you are formally wrong. Take that to the bank. And leave the ad hominem thing, since I have tried already to reason with you. Peace!

But even if I was all of these things it still wouldn't follow that you were right, asserting them merely makes you and your argument look weak.

I was addressing the one instance. That's what you apparently missed when you shot off your quick reply. I did not beg the question, since I provided proof for my statement in his encyclical. He is vindicated because he is a clear believer in Christ and His Church, and not in Islam. Nor is he a universalist, since he obviously gradates reality into one saving religion which has the fullness of truth, and is the ordinary means of salvation, and other religions which have only partial truth, which comes from Christ who enlightens all men. This happens to agree with the Church! As for his physical conditions, that is medically verified, and if you fully watched the video, and judging from your quick reply you had not, you'd see that that provides concrete proof of his condition at this visit. By itself an objective judgement on a statement is just that. It makes for good dogma books like Ott's. But you're not asserting that. You are impugning people in addition to statements. You are very much interested in involving the people just as much as the statements. Since you set the ground rules of the debate, I simply followed and pointed out that you can't go back on your method and now discount the people involved. If people are involved, then we take into account the full picture. This full picture involves every mitigating factor when negative judgement is involved. The statement is problematic obviously. But if we are doing more than attempting to gain ammunition in which to take out targets from on high, we would see that indeed the circumstances mititgate the problem greatly, and we can end with a simple conclusion.

"The statement of John Paul II was wrong on its face, and should be rejected as a fitting Catholic prayer. We, however, cannot conclude from this fact alone that he lost the Faith, rejected Christianity, accepted Islam as his religion, nor that perhaps he did not regret the statement later."

There you go. The contradiction in this case has been dealt with. Next!
Reply
#97
Possibly.  If so, I believe you'll find "Next!" two or three threads down.
Reply
#98
(08-19-2012, 10:37 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Nor is he a universalist, since he obviously gradates reality into one saving religion which has the fullness of truth

This is a V2 concept.  I don't really see the value of the "gradation" thing-- I can be pretty dang sure that at best it has been severely abused.  If you can find a quote that vindicates this idea of the council and of JP2 from an earlier source, I would be interested.  I would have simply said there's in the Church, there's out of the Church, and there may be those who are outside the Church materially or visibly but inside formally or really.  Normally I would hesitate to claim that I can teach Catholic doctrine more clearly than the pope.  In this case...

Quote:and is the ordinary means of salvation, and other religions which have only partial truth, which comes from Christ who enlightens all men. This happens to agree with the Church!

Um, debatable.  The Church, according to her solemn definitions, is not just the ordinary means of salvation, she is the sine qua non, or even better, the extra quam non of salvation.

Now, I'll grant you that saying that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation doesn't out and out conflict with saying the Church is the one ark of salvation.  But again, it doesn't teach it clearly, and it surely doesn't imply it.  Quite the contrary.

As for universalists, if he's not one, why does he praise Von Baltasar, who was?  Did he not understand his writings?

I got something from your previous posts, and I think there are good points there, but honestly, the whole issue is problematic, because modernists specifically do look like Catholics on one page, and liberals on another.  And it's not like this was a one-time thing for JP2.  It seems like it happened often enough to constitute a pattern.

And, as I said in another post, hosting Assisi seems like a severely sufficient condition for labeling someone a liberal, maybe even an apostate, especially in the case of the first one or two.  So while you MAY have vindicated JP2's orthodoxy on one point-- or rather, thrown enough doubt on what he actually said that one can charitably interpret him as orthodox without excessive prejudice to the truth-- I don't see that you have vindicated him, or that he CAN be vindicated, by taking into account his whole life.

I'm ready to be proven wrong, but really, I would be EXTREMELY surprised.
Reply
#99
(08-19-2012, 10:37 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(08-19-2012, 10:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-19-2012, 10:01 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(08-19-2012, 09:54 AM)TrentCath Wrote: I agree however, you are begging the question. The orthodoxy of his teaching is in question, so you can't simply claim it vindicates him. Nor do I find the argument he was of sound mind convincing, as for being a lover, his many errors and odd theology say otherwise.

TrentCath, you are rash, myopic, obstinate, prideful, and unwilling to listen. Even if you were materially right, you are formally wrong. Take that to the bank. And leave the ad hominem thing, since I have tried already to reason with you. Peace!

But even if I was all of these things it still wouldn't follow that you were right, asserting them merely makes you and your argument look weak.

I was addressing the one instance. That's what you apparently missed when you shot off your quick reply. I did not beg the question, since I provided proof for my statement in his encyclical. He is vindicated because he is a clear believer in Christ and His Church, and not in Islam. Nor is he a universalist, since he obviously gradates reality into one saving religion which has the fullness of truth, and is the ordinary means of salvation, and other religions which have only partial truth, which comes from Christ who enlightens all men. This happens to agree with the Church! As for his physical conditions, that is medically verified, and if you fully watched the video, and judging from your quick reply you had not, you'd see that that provides concrete proof of his condition at this visit. By itself an objective judgement on a statement is just that. It makes for good dogma books like Ott's. But you're not asserting that. You are impugning people in addition to statements. You are very much interested in involving the people just as much as the statements. Since you set the ground rules of the debate, I simply followed and pointed out that you can't go back on your method and now discount the people involved. If people are involved, then we take into account the full picture. This full picture involves every mitigating factor when negative judgement is involved. The statement is problematic obviously. But if we are doing more than attempting to gain ammunition in which to take out targets from on high, we would see that indeed the circumstances mititgate the problem greatly, and we can end with a simple conclusion.

"The statement of John Paul II was wrong on its face, and should be rejected as a fitting Catholic prayer. We, however, cannot conclude from this fact alone that he lost the Faith, rejected Christianity, accepted Islam as his religion, nor that perhaps he did not regret the statement later."

There you go. The contradiction in this case has been dealt with. Next!

And now you're constructing strawmen? Who said or even implied any of those things? I didn't, so I'm not sure what you've proved.

Are you now arguing he was so demented he didn't know what he was doing? Do I get to write off everything else he wrote as demented ramblings as well? Because that's ultimately what you're saying.
You also don't seem to get why it was quoted, to show the difference between his positive attitude towards that of Islam and previous popes.

As for reconciling contradictions, you haven't really done that you've just argued:

1) he's demented and doesn't know what he's saying
2) he might have regretted it later ( there being no evidence for this of course)

Did you not previously refuse to reconcile the contradictions? If you have changed your mind feel free to address the 10 or so pages of contradictions
Reply
And as I believe you (though correct me if i'm wrong) and others always say, lets look at things in context:

Quote: During my visit to Kenya I am very pleased to be able to greet a group of Muslim leaders. Your coming here today is deeply appreciated as an expression of your fraternal courtesy and respect.

Be assured that I reciprocate these sentiments in your regard and towards all the Muslim people of this land.

2. On other occasions I have spoken of the religious patrimony of Islam and of its spiritual values. The Catholic Church realizes that the element of worship given to the one, living, subsistent, merciful and almighty Creator of heaven and earth is common to Islam and herself, and that it is a great link uniting all Christians and Muslims. With great satisfaction she also notes, among other elements of Islam which are held in common, the honour attributed to Jesus Christ and his Virgin Mother. As the Catholic Church makes every effort to sustain religious dialogue with Islam on the basis of existing bonds, which she endeavours ever more to reflect on, she likewise extends the invitation that her own heritage be fully known, especially to those who are spiritually attached to Abraham, and who profess monotheism.

3. On my part I wish therefore to do everything possible to help develop the spiritual bonds between Christians and Muslims.

Prayer, almsgiving and fasting are highly valued in both of our respective traditions and are beyond doubt a splendid witness to a world that runs the risk of being absorbed by materialism. Our relationship of reciprocal esteem and the mutual desire for authentic service to humanity urge us on to joint commitments in promoting peace, social justice, moral values and all the true freedoms of man. 
MEETING OF JOHN PAUL II
WITH THE MUSLIM LEADERS

Nairobi (Kenya)
Wednesday, 7 Mai 1980


Quote: Dear Friends,

It is a special joy for me to be able to welcome you, our guests who follow the faith of Islam, to Rome for the colloquium on “Holiness in Christianity and Islam”. My fraternal greetings go as well to those Christians who have been taking part in the colloquium. As I have often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham. Thus it is natural that we have much to discuss concerning true holiness in obedience and worship to God.

All true holiness comes from God, who is called “The Holy One” in the Sacred Books of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Your Holy Qur’an calls God “Al-Quddus”, as in the verse: “He is God, besides Whom there is no other, the Sovereign, the Holy the (source of) Peace” (Al-Qur’an 59, 23). The prophet Hosea links God’s holiness with his forgiving love for mankind, a love which surpasses our ability to comprehend: “I am God, not man; I am the Holy One in your midst and have no wish to destroy” (Os. 11, 9). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus teaches his disciples that holiness consists in assuming, in our human way, the qualities of God’s own holiness which he has revealed to mankind: “Be holy, even as your heavenly Father is holy” (Matth. 5, 48).

Thus, the Qur’an calls you to uprightness (al-salah), to conscientious devotion (al-taqwa), to goodness (al-husn), and to virtue (al-birr), which is described as believing in God, giving one’s wealth to the needy, freeing captives, being constant in prayer, keeping one’s word, and being patient in times of suffering, hardship and violence (Qur’an 2, 177). Similarly, Saint Paul stresses the love we must show towards all, and the duty to lead a blameless life in the sight of God: “May the Lord be generous in increasing your love and make you love one another and the whole human race as much as we love you. And may he so confirm your hearts in holiness that you may be blameless in the sight of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus Christ comes with all his saints” (1 Thess. 3, 12-13). In today’s world, it is more important than ever that men and women of faith, assisted by God’s grace, should strive for true holiness. Self-centred tendencies, such as greed, the lust for power and prestige, competition, revenge, the lack of forgiveness, and the quest for earthly pleasures - all these threaten to turn mankind from the path to goodness and holiness which God has intended for all of us. The countless numbers of good people around the world - Christians, Muslims, and others - who quietly lead lives of authentic obedience, praise, and thanksgiving to God and selfless service of their neighbour, offer humanity a genuine alternative, “God’s way”, to a world which otherwise would be destroyed in selfseeking, hatred, and struggle.

May the God of holiness bless your efforts throughout these days!
ADDRESS OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE COLLOQUIUM
ON «HOLINESS IN CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM»


Quote: And given that Islam and Christianity worship the one God, Creator of heaven and earth, there is ample room for agreement and cooperation between them. A clash ensues only if Islam or Christianity is misconstrued or manipulated for political or ideological ends. 
ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER
TO THE NEW AMBASSADOR
OF BANGLADESH TO THE HOLY SEE*


Quote: . Continuing our discussion of interreligious dialogue, today we will reflect on dialogue with Muslims, who “together with us adore the one, merciful God” (Lumen gentium, n. 16; cf. CCC, n. 841). The Church has a high regard for them, convinced that their faith in the transcendent God contributes to building a new human family based on the highest aspirations of the human heart.

Muslims, like Jews and Christians, see the figure of Abraham as a model of unconditional submission to the decrees of God (Nostra aetate, n. 3). Following Abraham's example, the faithful strive to give God his rightful place in their lives as the origin, teacher, guide and ultimate destiny of all beings (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Message to Muslims for the end of Ramadan, 1417/1997). This human docility and openness to God's will is translated into an attitude of prayer which expresses the existential condition of every person before the Creator.

Along the path marked out by Abraham in his submission to the divine will, we find  his descendant, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus, who is also devoutly invoked by Muslims, especially in popular piety.

2. We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat  what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: “We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection” (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497). The patrimony of revealed texts in the Bible speaks unanimously of the oneness of God. Jesus himself reaffirms it, making Israel's profession his own: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Mk 12:29; cf. Dt 6:4-5). This oneness is also affirmed in the words of praise that spring from the heart of the Apostle Paul: “To the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen” (1 Tm 1:17). 
JOHN PAUL II

GENERAL AUDIENCE

Wednesday 5 May 1999


Given that the only possible way for you to know that he regretted it or even sensibly postulate such an idea is to see if there are any statements suggesting such (I know of none) or context, the above is highly relevant. The very different and very positive atttitude to Islam continues.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)