Dealing with apparent contradictions in Church teaching
#41
(08-17-2012, 09:37 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(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?

Nouvelle theologie.
Reply
#42
(08-17-2012, 10:36 PM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 09:37 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(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?

Nouvelle theologie.


How do you define the nouvelle theologie in terms of shared beliefs and values?
Reply
#43
(08-17-2012, 10:46 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 10:36 PM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 09:37 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(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?

Nouvelle theologie.


How do you define the nouvelle theologie in terms of shared beliefs and values?

Why do you ask questions when you already know the answers?
Reply
#44
(08-17-2012, 11:00 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 10:46 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 10:36 PM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 09:37 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(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?

Nouvelle theologie.


How do you define the nouvelle theologie in terms of shared beliefs and values?

Why do you ask questions when you already know the answers?

Some of these terms are used in many different ways. You can't have much of a conversation if you don't agree on definitions.
Reply
#45
(08-17-2012, 11:04 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 11:00 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 10:46 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 10:36 PM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 09:37 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(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?

Nouvelle theologie.


How do you define the nouvelle theologie in terms of shared beliefs and values?

Why do you ask questions when you already know the answers?

Some of these terms are used in many different ways. You can't have much of a conversation if you don't agree on definitions.

You know the ways in which Nouvelle Theologie liberalized theology, especially Thomism.  It employed a philosophical Modernism and Post-Modernism, robbing the universe of its intelligibility.

Concrete dogma was questioned in the name of modern speculation of the supernatural. 
Reply
#46
(08-17-2012, 08:47 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 01:45 AM)DrBombay Wrote: The problem is with people who claim contradiction but then refuse to take that to its logical conclusion which is that the Church has defected. 

I note that you regularly confuse churchmen with "The Church " .

Ah yes, the old "separate the Church from the people running the Church."  Classic sedeish dodge. It's really unbecoming for you to adopt such schizoid tactics, Hab Rit.  Epic fail I'm afraid.  
Reply
#47
(08-17-2012, 11:19 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 08:47 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 01:45 AM)DrBombay Wrote: The problem is with people who claim contradiction but then refuse to take that to its logical conclusion which is that the Church has defected. 

I note that you regularly confuse churchmen with "The Church " .

Ah yes, the old "separate the Church from the people running the Church."  Classic sedeish dodge. It's really unbecoming for you to adopt such schizoid tactics, Hab Rit.  Epic fail I'm afraid.  

It was really unbecoming of St. Paul to adopt such schizoid tactics too. 
Reply
#48
(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.

*shrug* I'll admit to being unfamiliar with the writings of said scholars.  I'm willing to listen to what they have to say, in bite-size chunks.

Nonetheless, I believe that what I said was a paraphrase of the Holy Father himself.  If anybody knows him, he ought to know himself.  So prima facie, I trust the Holy Father on this one more than the scholars.  That seems fair to me.

Quote: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.

Possibly.  But as I recall it, that's not what he said, and I took what he said in the literal sense.  Maybe that was stupid.  However, I have yet to see a demonstration thereof.

Quote: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.

Well, since it's late and I'm not really looking to go terribly in-depth, how about this:  Only a liberal would have hosted Assisi.  If you prefer, being host of Assisi is a sufficient condition to establish that someone is a liberal, in my mind.
Reply
#49
(08-17-2012, 11:21 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 11:19 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 08:47 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 01:45 AM)DrBombay Wrote: The problem is with people who claim contradiction but then refuse to take that to its logical conclusion which is that the Church has defected. 

I note that you regularly confuse churchmen with "The Church " .

Ah yes, the old "separate the Church from the people running the Church."  Classic sedeish dodge. It's really unbecoming for you to adopt such schizoid tactics, Hab Rit.  Epic fail I'm afraid.  

It was really unbecoming of St. Paul to adopt such schizoid tactics too. 

You are not a saint and neither is your friend.

(In the sense neither of you have been canonized.  I'm not commenting on your personal sanctity.)
Reply
#50
(08-17-2012, 11:17 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 11:04 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 11:00 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 10:46 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 10:36 PM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 09:37 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(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?

Nouvelle theologie.


How do you define the nouvelle theologie in terms of shared beliefs and values?

Why do you ask questions when you already know the answers?

Some of these terms are used in many different ways. You can't have much of a conversation if you don't agree on definitions.

You know the ways in which Nouvelle Theologie liberalized theology, especially Thomism.  It employed a philosophical Modernism and Post-Modernism, robbing the universe of its intelligibility.

Concrete dogma was questioned in the name of modern speculation of the supernatural. 

Okay, then does the Pope fit that definition? I find it hard to believe that the person who gave the Regensburg Lecture thinks that the universe is unintelligible (though arguably St. Thomas thought that even created beings are not truly comprehensible).

I'm also not sure if he questions dogma, but I'm not sure that every theologian associated with the nouvelle theologie did. It would seem to be a trait of the more radically historicist theologians who tended to reduce a particular dogma to its historical context and then dismiss the idea that it had any permanent meaning, but I think most people here would be surprised to see the deference with which someone like Henri de Lubac, say, treats the Magisterium.

(08-17-2012, 11:42 PM)JuniorCouncilor 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.

*shrug* I'll admit to being unfamiliar with the writings of said scholars.  I'm willing to listen to what they have to say, in bite-size chunks.

[quote='Jürgen Mettepenningen']
Joseph Ratzinger seemed to have had a similar evolution of mind. The year 1968 was a turning point for the latter, occasioning a transition from a progressive and proactive orientation to a conservative orientation in which the teaching of the magisterium was central.
[quote]

By the way, I have not seen the quotation by Pope Benedict, so I'm not actually sure what he said.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)