Dealing with apparent contradictions in Church teaching
#31
(08-17-2012, 03:28 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 03:23 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 02:46 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 02:27 PM)TrentCath Wrote: There have been over the decades and in facts till are many in Rome and all over the world who have stated quite clearly that Vatican 2 was a break and even a rejection of previous church teaching.

For the most part, such statements have come from notorious liberals who were making this claim in order to exert their influence.  The statements were not official teachings.  On the contrary, the official teaching is that Vatican II was not a break and must be interpreted in continuity with tradition.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If bishops, cardinals and papal groups have over many many years stated these things it is at the very least negligent to ignore this. It is also entirely irrelevant whether they were or weren't liberal, what matters is that they spoke officially and from positions of responsibility. Also that is the official teaching now but it has not always been so.

Any statements of this sort had little authority.  It is precisely because some people were confusing the faithful by saying such things that the teaching on "hermeneutic of continuity" was introduced.  The wrong statements have been corrected and they can be ignored.

And who decides that they have little authority? On what basis do you or anyone else make this judgement? And what about the many years before this hermenuitic of continuity was introduced?
Reply
#32
(08-17-2012, 02:55 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 02:41 PM)Montgisard Wrote: If people do not have a deep theological instruction they will not realise the subtle differences between the new and the old magisterium.
And that is what makes me wonder. People receive the teachings in good faith. They dont just read the new magisterium and start comparing it to the previous documents of centuries past. But the new theology is dangerous and would damn many souls. So there is a terrible situation that the very teaching of the Church helps take many souls to Hell -  instead of being an instrument of santification. And all of that with the permission of God. What good is to be taken from this evil? Could we say of all those misled souls that they freely condemned themselves to Hell?

You sound like a mislead soul yourself.  You are expressing a schismatic view.

??? I'm sorry please explain how this is a schismatic view.
Reply
#33
(08-17-2012, 03:31 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 02:58 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: Wasn't card. Ratzinger one of those notorious liberals?  While he was head of the CDF, no less....

It might have been fair to call him that at the time of the Council but not while he was head of the CDF. 

Ah, but see, there's a real problem with believing that.  His Holiness himself has said that he hasn't changed, his positions haven't changed since that time.  It's everyone else who's gotten more liberal.

As best I can tell, he's correct.  He was a liberal then, and he's a liberal now.  He just happens to be much less liberal than the others, because he stopped going further into the abyss-- but hasn't come out of it, either.
Reply
#34
(08-17-2012, 03:31 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 02:58 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: Wasn't card. Ratzinger one of those notorious liberals?  While he was head of the CDF, no less....

It might have been fair to call him that at the time of the Council but not while he was head of the CDF.  I was hanging around with real "notorious liberals" at that time and they definitely considered him to be their opponent.  They complained about almost everything he did.

What JC said.

However, as prefect of the CDF, +Ratzinger was often quoted as saying VatII was a break with tradition, it rejected prior teaching, etc, wasn't he?
Reply
#35
It is common even among scholars to note that the Holy Father became more conservative after 1968. I don't really think that's subject to much doubt.

On the various quotations about the Pope not having changed, I think there is a difference between someone seeing an essential line of continuity running throughout his work and the idea that he has not changed at all in 50 years.

Lastly, I don't see how the Holy Father can be called a liberal. It would be helpful in these discussions to think about the definitions of terms before using them.
Reply
#36
(08-16-2012, 11:21 PM)TrentCath Wrote: You assert that anyone who does not have a fairly strong background in theology and/or history should presume church teaching is not in error and that their lack of knowledge is the reason for their perception of a contradiction, this statement is problematic for several reasons:

i) it is vague what is a 'fairly strong background...' who determines this? How do people assess whether they have this? Ultimately it becomes a subjective measure and means that anyone could claim that the reason they perceive an error is that they don't have a strong enough background and there would be no way of defending against this claim.

It is fairly easy to assess.  Does one have enough background to recognize contingent teaching, legitimate developments, shifts in emphasis, etc. if they were there?  

I need to go.  I will come back to the other points.
Reply
#37
(08-17-2012, 07:11 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 11:21 PM)TrentCath Wrote: You assert that anyone who does not have a fairly strong background in theology and/or history should presume church teaching is not in error and that their lack of knowledge is the reason for their perception of a contradiction, this statement is problematic for several reasons:

i) it is vague what is a 'fairly strong background...' who determines this? How do people assess whether they have this? Ultimately it becomes a subjective measure and means that anyone could claim that the reason they perceive an error is that they don't have a strong enough background and there would be no way of defending against this claim.

It is fairly easy to assess.  Does one have enough background to recognize contingent teaching, legitimate developments, shifts in emphasis, etc. if they were there?  

I need to go.  I will come back to the other points.

All you've done is write the same thing in different words, in essence your reply is a sophism, you have got no closer to actually explaining what a 'fairly strong background' is.
Reply
#38
(08-17-2012, 07:05 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: It is common even among scholars to note that the Holy Father became more conservative after 1968. I don't really think that's subject to much doubt.

On the various quotations about the Pope not having changed, I think there is a difference between someone seeing an essential line of continuity running throughout his work and the idea that he has not changed at all in 50 years.

Lastly, I don't see how the Holy Father can be called a liberal. It would be helpful in these discussions to think about the definitions of terms before using them.

The pope may not be a 'liberal' in the subjective sense of the word according to todays standards, but objectively his theology and philosophy is liberal and is liberal by the standards of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.
Reply
#39
I think these criteria are the basic ones of any charitable reading. I will rephrase them for simplicity, as most of them fall under the second one, really.
1) Make sure what you are quoting is in context.
2) Make sure there is some actual contradiction, not just a different--and perhaps inferior--way of saying the same thing. Rhetoric can be critiqued later, but it is not, and never has been, essential to meaning. (most of the other points in JayneK's post fall under this one)
3) Remember that not all facts are timeless truths. This is fairly simple. That one must fast for an hour before mass is a contingent fact, for instance, as is the statement "France is a nation in Europe." France will not always be, and was not always, a nation in Europe. Likewise, the fast before mass will not always be (hopefully), and was not always, merely an hour. Easy peasy.

If you cannot support your position using these basic criteria, you ought not hold to such a position. Of course, these criteria might not apply where Jayne thinks they might--that is another matter entirely--but I'm sure we can at least agree on these basic criteria without much full.

Quote:Not so...only when we are talking about Dogmatic teaching is this correct.
No. The Church qua the Church is infallible. Those in Church hierarchy can teach falsely, but the Church itself does not and cannot teach falsely. If you disagree with this you ought to brush up on your theology, especially concerning what constitutes the Church.
Reply
#40
(08-17-2012, 08:30 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 07:05 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: It is common even among scholars to note that the Holy Father became more conservative after 1968. I don't really think that's subject to much doubt.

On the various quotations about the Pope not having changed, I think there is a difference between someone seeing an essential line of continuity running throughout his work and the idea that he has not changed at all in 50 years.

Lastly, I don't see how the Holy Father can be called a liberal. It would be helpful in these discussions to think about the definitions of terms before using them.

The pope may not be a 'liberal' in the subjective sense of the word according to todays standards, but objectively his theology and philosophy is liberal and is liberal by the standards of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.

Okay, but how would you define "liberal theology"? For as much as the term is used around here, I don't really see much thought given to what it actually means. For example, I've seen trads call Bishop Fellay a liberal. Do you think that's accurate?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)