Dealing with apparent contradictions in Church teaching
(08-22-2012, 11:29 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Yes, I said we are just as prone. I did not say more prone, or less prone than humanity.

Yes, you're right. I apologize if I seemed to jump on you.

Quote:Since this is a self-criticism of the movement I believe I am part of, it is admitting that we should not overlook our own blindspots.

Of course, but a lot of Catholics who call themselves "trads" here are the ones who are always saying that traditional Catholics in particular are just rumor mongerers and the like. I must have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. I apologize for that.
Quote: That is why in my own life I have purposely engaged many of these problematic texts, people, doctrines, etc., and went beyond the talking-points and soundbites. It has lessened my credence of the popular traditional Catholic polemic. I just simply wasn't convinced in some instances when I put the claims to the test. I now think that many of the criticisms, while still being valid in part, should be examined from a point of skepticism. I think that traditional Catholics in general are way too accepting of what comes from the main sources of polemic, and we should put these things to the test as we would the works of the current Popes. We can't walk around with the idea that we're right, our interpretation is right, and anything our friends say and write is right. I was often struck when I talked to people about VII, the New Mass, the theology and teachings of the Popes, and such like, and they really were never acquainted with the stuff first hand, but just filtered through the polemic. Read the VII texts first hand. Read a commentary on them. Read the CCC. Read the Pope's works. Read the encyclicals, etc. Read their defenses. Also read the past works first hand too. SaintSebastian, for instance, gave the quote from Leo XIII about engaging with non-Catholics. That was enlightening. This builds up a complete picture, and helps us divorce the emotion of not wanting to disagree with the leading-lights of the traditionalist movement. Of course, we should have those works in the mix too, but only reading traditionalist articles and books creates a type of myopia and disconnect, which doesn't even give us the proper tools to judge because we're limited to our small crop of supporting texts. Widen it out. Look at the whole scope of tradition. It's like the few Catholics I've met that thought eastern rites were not Catholic because they weren't the traditional Roman Mass. Obviously a little dispassionate study would resolve this. So we need to realize we are just as prone to these tendencies as NO Catholics, liberal abortion supporters, and the whole nine yards. Perhaps this can be added to the ways to "deal with contradiction".

I didn't propose reading only traditional apologetic material. I apologize if I've given that impression. It couldn't be further from the truth. I read the counter-arguments for the very purpose of knowing truth from error. I don't think anyone here is proposing that you read only traditional material.

But there are a lot of errors of reasoning in the above paragraph.
Reply
(08-22-2012, 09:59 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(08-22-2012, 08:23 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Theology of the body? I think not somehow, from what I hear most of that was unorthodox and if John Paul II came up with it, there will be unorthodoxy in it somewhere.

That's why I read it. I figure if I am to not like this guy, or a particular work of his, I should probably read his works first. Trads are just as prone to rumor-mongering, half-truths, hearsay, and the like. Although, whenever I heard someone complaining about it, it wasn't that "most of that was unorthodox". I mostly heard trads complaining about some of the commentators and devotees who have sprung up, or they had a knee-jerk reaction to it because it is about "sex" (showing that they didn't read it). Sounds like you are closed off to the chance of having your preconceived notions shattered. JPII's works are often quite dense, so be forewarned. Not my favorite style, but many times worth the effort. You can also read Love and Responsibility and The Acting Person which are good primers to his thoughts expanded in TOTB. Also you can read The Question of Faith according to St. John of the Cross, which he wrote under Garrigou-Lagrange. I'm sure that's orthodox.

I'm afraid you are not giving the full picture, there are good reasons for trads to not like theology of the body, Archbishop Lefebvre for one openly mocked it. If you wish to read JP II's works I think you are being foolish, I would rather read perfectly orthodox authors than sort out the potentially orthodox from the definitely unorthodox writings of a liberal pope. Why risk drinking brackish water when you can drink the mountain stream?
Reply
(08-22-2012, 09:27 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-22-2012, 09:07 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-22-2012, 08:55 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-22-2012, 08:23 AM)TrentCath Wrote: . . . if John Paul II came up with it, there will be unorthodoxy in it somewhere.

This sounds like you approach the writings of this pope with a presumption of unorthodoxy.  This attitude probably leads you to look for things to confirm your bias rather than to look for ways to understand his positions as orthodox.  Do you have some basis in Church teaching for doing this?  I would have thought that we ought to do the opposite.

Yes, moral theology based on his actions and teachings I have formed the more certain opinion that most of what he teaches is unorthodox.

And Jayne lets not revert to the silliness of the other thread, I am not bias I am simply logical or at least more logical than those who perform sophistry to make the modern popes look orthodox.

I'm sorry if my words were offensive.  I did not mean "bias" as an insult.  I was thinking of confirmation bias which applies to virtually everyone. From Wikipedia:
Quote:Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Ah ok sorry  :blush: still this works both ways and thus you prove too much
Reply
(08-22-2012, 11:58 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: But there are a lot of errors of reasoning in the above paragraph.

Feel free to share those for my or other people's enlightenment.
Reply
(08-22-2012, 12:06 PM)TrentCath Wrote: I'm afraid you are not giving the full picture, there are good reasons for trads to not like theology of the body, Archbishop Lefebvre for one openly mocked it. If you wish to read JP II's works I think you are being foolish, I would rather read perfectly orthodox authors than sort out the potentially orthodox from the definitely unorthodox writings of a liberal pope. Why risk drinking brackish water when you can drink the mountain stream?

Maybe I failed to communicate myself well. Even though I am unaware of Abp Lefebvre mocking TOTB, that would lead me to want to read it. I am not necessarily going to them initially for my "lectio divina", but to see whether said mock was appropriate. I would come to it to strengthen my argument against it, to vendicate it and discount that criticism, or sort of adopt a neutral position that it can be taken or left. I read TOTB because of Michael Matt's frequent criticisms of it. I read more into rock music, music theory and philosophy because of Michael Matt and John Vennari's anti-rock music stance. I am reading St Benedicta because some trads malign her as a "new saint". I read about New Theology because the word "modernism" is thrown in the widest possible way. I read about personalism because Bishop Tessier criticizes it. I read Benedict XVI's works because he is called a heretic and modernist. See where I am going? Some were very beneficial to me. Some interesting. I can say, though, that I am better equipped than before to come to both sets of works.
Reply
(08-22-2012, 12:30 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(08-22-2012, 11:58 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: But there are a lot of errors of reasoning in the above paragraph.

Feel free to share those for my or other people's enlightenment.

Well, unless I misunderstand you, you think that the problem is solved by simply reading more from Vatican II and accepting as orthodox the reasons the Vatican gives to justify the revolution. But (1) the more one reads the more troubling it gets; (2) many of the reasons given by the Vatican to justify what has been done were already condemned by the Church; (3) simply reading and re-reading these justications trying to "make ends meet" is a dangerous policy, since we were warned by St. Pius X that the Modernists were "coming back," as it were, and that this second blow would be much worse than the first. He warned that it would be subversive; trusting in our intellects to sort out the subversion is a dangerous recommendation.

I would also like to point out that I think the reasons used to attempt to reconcile the contradictions are very poor and desperate. What is un-Catholic in principle is rationalized away with little sound bites and cut-and-paste quotes (as you put it), cherry-picking Church history to find precedent, theological gymnastics, absence of scholasticism, lack of understand of Catholic theology, etc. I have seen SaintSebastian use these techniques, too, to argue against many traditional Catholics, so I don't think it is only traditional Catholics trying to fit things into their world view. There is a lot of that going on from the opposite side, too, but it takes stepping out of one's world view in order to see it.

Please recall the warnings of St. Pius X. Here is a good example: 
Quote:"[The Modernists'] real aims, their plots, the line they are following are well known to all of you, . . . What they propose is a universal apostasy still worse than the one which threatened the century of Charles (Borromeo), from the fact that it creeps insidious and hidden in the very veins of the Church and with extreme subtlety pushes erroneous principles to their extreme conclusions.

"But both have the same origin in 'the enemy who,' ever alert for the perdition of men, 'has oversown cockle among the wheat' (Matt. 13, 25); of both revolts the ways are hidden and darksome, with the same development and the same fatal issue... Truly a spectacle full of sadness for the present and of menace for the future . . . especially for those who foment with the most activity or who tolerate with the most indifference this pestiferous wind of impiety" (Encyclical letter Editae Saepe, May 26, 1910, emphasis added).


Unfortunately, I can't quote the entire document here, but I encourage you to read the entire thing yourself.
Reply
From St. Pius' warning can be seen the reality that the contradictions aren't going to come "all at once" and from the extraordinary magisterium. They will start in less conspicuous areas of the Church's teaching faculty and eventually work their ways into the fabric of "magisterial" authority. The errors are going to creep insidious and hidden in the very veins of the Church and with extreme subtlety erroneous principles will be pushed to their extreme conclusions. (The standard refutation here is to argue that St. Pius X isn't infallible, so he can be discarded. But that isn't really a refutation. I hope you see the error in this approach.)

If you study conciliar theology from the time of the council until today, some of this activity can be traced, and there is a great deal of documented evidence for this, beginning from the time of the council and continuing all the way to the present. I have seen the line moved further and further by conservative Catholics as the errors of the revolution are slowly pushed to their conclusions. We started with tiny novelties that were quickly excused, and now we have glaring contradictions being defended that were previously acknowledged by the same group to be erroneous.
Reply
Can it be said that any aspects of Modernism that have been integrated into the official magisterium of the Church have been "purified" of its error?

For instance, the official magisterium of the Church does not:

- advocate complete freedom of reason from faith, the State from the Church, private conscience over papal definitions or anathemas, or science from religion;
- advocate a spirit of evolution, movement, and change in contradiction to anything remaining stable and fixed (including dogma);
- or advocate reconciliation amongst people based on feelings alone, or completely ignoring real doctrinal differences.

There are certainly modernists operating within the Church, and modernist tendencies in every direction, but can we truly say that Modernism has affected the official magisterium of the Church thereby concluding that it contains errors?

Can we also say that some of the "correctives" of VII, and the post VII era contain elements in common with the Modernists, but is not actually Modernism? For example, a strong desire to reconcile men, but not taken to the extreme of completely ignoring real doctrinal differences.
Reply
(08-22-2012, 12:54 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(08-22-2012, 12:06 PM)TrentCath Wrote: I'm afraid you are not giving the full picture, there are good reasons for trads to not like theology of the body, Archbishop Lefebvre for one openly mocked it. If you wish to read JP II's works I think you are being foolish, I would rather read perfectly orthodox authors than sort out the potentially orthodox from the definitely unorthodox writings of a liberal pope. Why risk drinking brackish water when you can drink the mountain stream?

Maybe I failed to communicate myself well. Even though I am unaware of Abp Lefebvre mocking TOTB, that would lead me to want to read it. I am not necessarily going to them initially for my "lectio divina", but to see whether said mock was appropriate. I would come to it to strengthen my argument against it, to vendicate it and discount that criticism, or sort of adopt a neutral position that it can be taken or left. I read TOTB because of Michael Matt's frequent criticisms of it. I read more into rock music, music theory and philosophy because of Michael Matt and John Vennari's anti-rock music stance. I am reading St Benedicta because some trads malign her as a "new saint". I read about New Theology because the word "modernism" is thrown in the widest possible way. I read about personalism because Bishop Tessier criticizes it. I read Benedict XVI's works because he is called a heretic and modernist. See where I am going? Some were very beneficial to me. Some interesting. I can say, though, that I am better equipped than before to come to both sets of works.

Yes, the foolish idea that one should expose ones faith to danger in order to strengthen it, books were banned ( and it was sinful to read them) and burned for a reason
Reply
(08-22-2012, 02:09 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Can it be said that any aspects of Modernism that have been integrated into the official magisterium of the Church have been "purified" of its error?

For instance, the official magisterium of the Church does not:

- advocate complete freedom of reason from faith, the State from the Church, private conscience over papal definitions or anathemas, or science from religion;
- advocate a spirit of evolution, movement, and change in contradiction to anything remaining stable and fixed (including dogma);
- or advocate reconciliation amongst people based on feelings alone, or completely ignoring real doctrinal differences.

There are certainly modernists operating within the Church, and modernist tendencies in every direction, but can we truly say that Modernism has affected the official magisterium of the Church thereby concluding that it contains errors?

Can we also say that some of the "correctives" of VII, and the post VII era contain elements in common with the Modernists, but is not actually Modernism? For example, a strong desire to reconcile men, but not taken to the extreme of completely ignoring real doctrinal differences.

No we can't and the long list of quotes shows that.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)