Fides manducans intellectum!
#31
(10-24-2012, 01:29 AM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote:
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
Yes, that's good to quote in this context.

The reason I opened up this thread was because every Modernist priest I've ever talked to has a very nebulous notion of what dogma and heresy are. I've even been accused by one for being heretical just because I pointed out that Vatican II did not make any new dogmatic declarations; at best, it only restated previously defined dogma, and at worst it innovated (e.g., Dignitatis Humanæ's sententia communis claim that religious liberty is a fundamental human right).
Reply
#32
(10-24-2012, 01:13 AM)Walty Wrote: It is Him that we are unpacking and we can only do it via His active grace, but that doesn't mean that he's revealing more content to us than we had, say, 1,000 years ago.  The fact that the content of revelation ended with the last Apostle is de fide teaching and it sounds like you have no argumentation against it (how could you?) other than that it doesn't tickle your fancy as much as this dynamic, "budding" God does.

I cannot emphasize enough how dangerous this idea is.  And it's not necessary.  God remains dynamic, actively moving in our lives and the life of the Church.  That doesn't require the breadth of revelation to increase.

First, the teaching is "theologically certain". The Church has not pronounced definitely on the matter, so strictly speaking de fide is not accurate. So, yes, it is certain that Revelation ended with St John, but that leaves open many things still. Like I gave in analogy, all the seeds are there, but the development is actually a revelation of sorts, and God's does this. And seeing as God could have created some things in a finished state (not liable to change), others he could have created as a seed which would undergo development, such an understanding of dogma is not unorthodox, given the safeguards I already have stated. In addition we understand all kinds of aspects of change in God, while asserting His immutability. We pray to Him, petition Him, He exerts His will in time. Theologically and philosophically it is distinguished that God has one eternal will, and that will is perfect in Himself. That He wills in Himself, and not because of external persuasion. Obviously if we pray and offer sacrifice to God, and yet hold that God is not externally affected by this, then it can be held that He deposited living dogmas which do not substantially change, but retain their nature, their integrity, and do not contradict. Modernists relativize dogmas. In the efforts against them the immutability and objectivity of dogma was asserted and emphasized. But if we took God by analogy, and asserted His immutability in a similar fashion, we would hold into question many of the truths of our Faith, like our participation in the Sacrifice of the Mass. There was the one unchanging sacrifice on Calvary, and yet we participate in it each time we attend Mass. We offer ourselves with Christ. We receive Him. We enter into relationship with Him ("abide in Me, and I in him"), and our deepest prayers are answered. So Modernism can be rejected without jumping to an overemphasis on the opposing doctrines which become abstracted from Christian life. Christianity is full of paradoxes. At the least I know for sure that the static deposit which is discovered/unpacked in a one-sided venture by man is not an adequate explanation. It doesn't fit God's interest in humanity. It doesn't fit the understanding we have through our religion that Christ, who is Truth, enters into a relationship with us continually to this day. And not just "us" as in humanity, or the Church, but also each of us separately.

I will take your ideas into account and pray and investigate further. PAX!
Reply
#33
(10-24-2012, 09:15 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: First, the teaching is "theologically certain". The Church has not pronounced definitely on the matter, so strictly speaking de fide is not accurate. So, yes, it is certain that Revelation ended with St John, but that leaves open many things still. Like I gave in analogy, all the seeds are there, but the development is actually a revelation of sorts, and God's does this.

If the "seeds are there" but the development is actually "a revelation of sorts" then you're not adhering to the Church's teaching at all.  All you're saying, Scriptorium is, "Well yes, revelation ends with the death of the last apostle but perhaps there is a *special* revelation which does not."  That doesn't make sense.  It's self contradictory and it contradicts with what the Church teaches.

All revelation ends with the death of the last apostle, not just some, or not just some kinds.

Scriptorium Wrote:At the least I know for sure that the static deposit which is discovered/unpacked in a one-sided venture by man is not an adequate explanation. It doesn't fit God's interest in humanity. It doesn't fit the understanding we have through our religion that Christ, who is Truth, enters into a relationship with us continually to this day. And not just "us" as in humanity, or the Church, but also each of us separately.

You keep saying that the Church's teaching on revelation "doesn't fit God's interest in humanity" but you haven't adequately explained why.

God is intimately interested in man and engages with him intimately.  That does not require that He continually reveal more things to man, but simply that He helps man more fully understand what has already been revealed.  The latter case does not signify a less dynamic and involved God.
Reply
#34
Related to this thread is this article:
John R. T. Lamont (2008). "Determining the Content and Degree of Authority of Church Teachings". The Thomist 72: 371-407.

Also, it seems Newman theory of doctrinal and dogmatic development, what I'm calling here "fides manducans intellectum," is similar to that of Father Marin-Sola, O.P. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., describes the doctrine of Fr. Marin-Sola (Reality ch. 6):
Reality ch. 6 Wrote:Marin-Sola, holds that theological reasoning strictly illative [conclusions of a syllogism with 'one premise of faith and one premise of reason'] can discover truths capable of being defined as dogmas of faith.
Father Charlier is
Reality ch. 6 Wrote:in diametrical opposition to Father Marin-Sola. His thesis runs thus: Demonstration, in the strict sense of the word, cannot be employed in theology. Theology, he argues, cannot of itself arrive with certitude at these conclusions, which belong to the metaphysics that the theologian employs rather than to theology itself. Theology must be content to explain and to systematize the truths of faith. But, of itself, it can never deduce with certitude conclusions which are only virtually revealed.
Reality ch. 6 Wrote:Neither of these opposed positions is, we think, in accord with the teaching of St. Thomas and his chief commentators. Genuine Thomistic teaching, we hold, is an elevated highway, running above these two extremes. Extended quotation, from the saint and his best interpreters, would sustain our view.
He proves this, as I mentioned here:
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.s Reality ch. 5 Wrote:To illustrate, let us take these two statements: first, "Jesus is truly God," second, "Jesus is truly man." From these two statements there follows, by a strictly illative process, this third statement: Jesus has two minds and two wills. And this third truth is elsewhere explicitly revealed, in the words of Jesus Himself: "Not as I will, but as Thou wilt."

Now a conclusion of this kind, a conclusion revealed elsewhere, can evidently be defined by the Church as a dogma of faith.
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.s Reality ch. 5 Wrote:[Thomists hold that for] theological conclusions properly so called, namely, conclusions obtained by a genuinely illative process, from one premise of faith and one premise of reason[, …] the Church can condemn the contradictory of such a conclusion, but if she does, she condemns it, not as heretical, that is, as contrary to the faith, but as erroneous, that is, contrary to an accepted theological conclusion.
But all this discussion doesn't appear to say anything about the words used in dogmatic definitions; Bp. Tissier discusses the assimilation of the Greek word "Λόγος" into Catholic teaching.

As I wrote here:
Quote:Fides et Ratio §95 says: "[D]ogmatic statements, while reflecting at times the culture of the period in which they were defined, formulate an unchanging and ultimate truth[,] [...] a truth transcending [...] [historical and cultural] circumstances."

This is certainly not Modernist. Humani Generis §15 says the Modernists "hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts [notionibus] but only by approximate and ever changeable notions [notionibus]..."

Fides et Ratio §96 fn. 112 contains a direct quote from Humani Generis §30 […]. Fides et Ratio §96 says: "Pius XII addressed in his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis" "the problem of the enduring validity of the conceptual language used in Conciliar definitions." "This is a complex theme to ponder, since one must reckon seriously with the meaning which words assume in different times and cultures. [This is historicism, which he condemned in §87. To avoid this he suggests, in §97, a return to "a philosophy of being {Thomism?} which first of all would enable dogmatic theology to perform its functions appropriately."] [...] We may hope, then, that philosophy will be especially concerned to deepen the understanding of the relationship between conceptual language [sermonem intellectivum] and truth, and to propose ways which will lead to a right understanding of that relationship [viz., the relationship between other philosophies and Thomism, the latter being closest to truth?]."

So, as I'm beginning to understand it, John Paul II is basically advocating Thomism ["Christian philosophy" (§76) or "philosophy of being"] for "dogmatic theology to perform its functions appropriately" (§97), but the Church does not necessarily endorse a philosophy for functions beyond "when it engages theology" (§49).
Reply
#35
Pope St. Pius X very much approved of Newman.  Here is some evidence, a book written in favor of Newman vs. the modernists, and the Pope's approval of the book. You probably should read the letter from the Pope first (the whole thing).

1) Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis: an essay
by the Most Rev. Edward Thomas O'Dwyer Bishop of Limerick (1908)
http://www.newmanreader.org/controversie...x.html#top  (Click on the links "Preface" and then "Essay" to read it)

2) Letter from Pope Pius X to Bishop O'Dwyer approving his book
"Pope Pius X" Wrote:http://www.newmanreader.org/canonization...mar08.html

English translation, provided by Michael Davies, also included in Davies' Lead Kindly Light: The Life of John Henry Newman, Neumann Press, 2001.

LETTER
In which Pope Pius X approves the work of the Bishop of Limerick
on the writings of Cardinal Newman.
To his Venerable Brother
Edward Thomas Bishop of Limerick

Venerable Brother, greetings and Our Apostolic blessing. We hereby inform you that your essay, in which you show that the writings of Cardinal Newman, far from being in disagreement with Our Encyclical Letter Pascendi, are very much in harmony with it, has been emphatically approved by Us: for you could not have better served both the truth and the dignity of man. It is clear that those people whose errors We have condemned in that Document had decided among themselves to produce something of their own invention with which to seek the commendation [perhaps this should be condemnation] of a distinguished person. And so they everywhere assert with confidence that they have taken these things from the very source and summit of authority, and that therefore We cannot censure their teachings, but rather that We had even previously gone so far as to condemn what such a great author had taught. Incredible though it may appear, although it is not always realised, there are to be found those who are so puffed up with pride that it is enough to overwhelm the mind, and who are convinced that they are Catholics and pass themselves off as such, while in matters concerning the inner discipline of religion they prefer the authority of their own private teaching to the pre-eminent authority of the Magisterium of the Apostolic See. Not only do you fully demonstrate their obstinacy but you also show clearly their deceitfulness.For, if in the things he had written before his profession of the Catholic faith one can justly detect something which may have a kind of similarity with certain Modernist formulas, you are correct in saying that this is not relevant to his later works. Moreover, as far as that matter is concerned, his way of thinking has been expressed in very different ways, both in the spoken word and in his published writings, and the author himself, on his admission into the Catholic Church, forwarded all his writings to the authority of the same Church so that any corrections might be made, if judged appropriate. Regarding the large number of books of great importance and influence which he wrote as a Catholic, it is hardly necessary to exonerate them from any connection with this present heresy. And indeed, in the domain of England, it is common knowledge that Henry Newman pleaded the cause of the Catholic faith in his prolific literary output so effectively that his work was both highly beneficial to its citizens and greatly appreciated by Our Predecessors: and so he is held worthy of office whom Leo XIII, undoubtedly a shrewd judge of men and affairs, appointed Cardinal; indeed he was very highly regarded by him at every stage of his career, and deservedly so. Truly, there is something about such a large quantity of work and his long hours of labour lasting far into the night that seems foreign to the usual way of theologians: nothing can be found to bring any suspicion about his faith. You correctly state that it is entirely to be expected that where no new signs of heresy were apparent he has perhaps used an off-guard manner of speaking to some people in certain places, but that what the Modernists do is to falsely and deceitfully take those words out of the whole context of what he meant to say and twist them to suit their own meaning. We therefore congratulate you for having, through your knowledge of all his writings, brilliantly vindicated the memory of this eminently upright and wise man from injustice: and also for having, to the best of your ability, brought your influence to bear among your fellow-countrymen, but particularly among the English people, so that those who were accustomed to abusing his name and deceiving the ignorant should henceforth cease doing so. Would that they should follow Newman the author faithfully by studying his books without, to be sure, being addicted to their own prejudices, and let them not with wicked cunning conjure anything up from them or declare that their own opinions are confirmed in them; but instead let them understand his pure and whole principles, his lessons and inspiration which they contain. They will learn many excellent things from such a great teacher: in the first place, to regard the Magisterium of the Church as sacred, to defend the doctrine handed down inviolately by the Fathers and, what is of highest importance to the safeguarding of Catholic truth, to follow and obey the Successor of St. Peter with the greatest faith. To you, therefore, Venerable Brother, and to your clergy and people, We give Our heartfelt thanks for having taken the trouble to help Us in Our reduced circumstances by sending your communal gift of financial aid: and in order to gain for you all, but first and foremost for yourself, the gifts of God's goodness, and as a testimony of Our benevolence, We affectionately bestow Our Apostolic blessing.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's, on 10 March 1908, in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.
Pius PP. X

I haven't kept up with all the reading in this post very well, and I don't know if Bishop T. brought up this letter.  But I'm not going to dump Newman with the modernists too quickly.  Perhaps his terminology and some of his ideas were not in accord with better theological explanations and standards (dogma vs doctrine, heresy vs error, etc), and we can continue to criticize his views in this thread. But I can't ignore the praise from Pope St. Pius X.  I don't know if Cardinal Newman should be canonized but I hold him in high regard. 
Reply
#36
(10-25-2012, 02:56 AM)Doce Me Wrote: Pope St. Pius X very much approved of Newman.  Here is some evidence, a book written in favor of Newman vs. the modernists, and the Pope's approval of the book. You probably should read the letter from the Pope first (the whole thing).

1) Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis: an essay
by the Most Rev. Edward Thomas O'Dwyer Bishop of Limerick (1908)
http://www.newmanreader.org/controversie...x.html#top  (Click on the links "Preface" and then "Essay" to read it)

2) Letter from Pope Pius X to Bishop O'Dwyer approving his book
Yes, I've read those before. I found that Bp. O'Dwyer basically proof-texted Newman, mining for what orthodox things he wrote, and I doubt that Pope St. Pius X even read Newman's works.

Maybe I am failing to see what sort of audience Newman was writing these works for. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., considers Newman a Catholic theologian and apologist "who stresses the argument based on the dictates of conscience" (Principles of Catholic Apologetics pg. 41).
Reply
#37
(10-25-2012, 03:14 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 02:56 AM)Doce Me Wrote: Pope St. Pius X very much approved of Newman.  Here is some evidence, a book written in favor of Newman vs. the modernists, and the Pope's approval of the book. You probably should read the letter from the Pope first (the whole thing).

1) Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis: an essay
by the Most Rev. Edward Thomas O'Dwyer Bishop of Limerick (1908)
http://www.newmanreader.org/controversie...x.html#top  (Click on the links "Preface" and then "Essay" to read it)

2) Letter from Pope Pius X to Bishop O'Dwyer approving his book
Yes, I've read those before. I found that Bp. O'Dwyer basically proof-texted Newman, mining for what orthodox things he wrote, and I doubt that Pope St. Pius X even read Newman's works.

Maybe I am failing to see what sort of audience Newman was writing these works for. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., considers Newman a Catholic theologian and apologist "who stresses the argument based on the dictates of conscience" (Principles of Catholic Apologetics pg. 41).

I wouldn't want to say that Pope St. Pius X did not read Newman, when he said "nothing can be found to bring any suspicion about his faith.", and many similar things.  Even if the Pope did not read Newman himself, surely he was wise in his judgement of what others wrote about him. 

This is not to say I can't read Newman critically, but for me it means that I shouldn't accuse him blatantly of being a modernist, at least until I have some real expertise in the matter (and it is extremely unlikely that this will happen). I would rather start by giving him the benefit of the doubt (based on Pope St. Pius' judgment) and defend him from the attack of being a modernist, not proof-texting but thinking like St. Thomas did when he criticized something that St. Augustine said.(showing that something is true in a sense, even if not in the primary sense) .Even if Newman made mistakes that look like modernism, I would rather be careful not to think they necessarily destroyed his arguments as a whole. I am not saying that Newman is a saint but that his views should be highly respected.

I too remember Newman  as promoting the argument for God based on conscience.
Reply
#38
I will go back to read this thread more carefully. But if doctrine doesn't develop, then how do I avoid the following reasoning:

1. Doctrine doesn't develop.
2. It ended at the death of St. John the Apostle.
3. Many christians after St. John (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) didn't accept the Immaculate Conception.
4. Though Scotus, for example, did defend the Immaculate Conception, it obviously wasn't defined doctrine.
5. So we shouldn't consider the Immaculate Conception to be doctrine now either.

additionally

6. The Roman Church does teach the Immaculate Conception (de fide).
7. Therefore the Roman Church is fallible.
Reply
#39
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I will go back to read this thread more carefully. But if doctrine doesn't develop, then how do I avoid the following reasoning:

1. Doctrine doesn't develop.
2. It ended at the death of St. John the Apostle.
3. Many christians after St. John (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) didn't accept the Immaculate Conception.
4. Though Scotus, for example, did defend the Immaculate Conception, it obviously wasn't defined doctrine.
5. So we shouldn't consider the Immaculate Conception to be doctrine now either.

additionally

6. The Roman Church does teach the Immaculate Conception (de fide).
7. Therefore the Roman Church is fallible.

Just because some don't recognize it doesn't mean that it isn't in revelation.  Some parts of revelation are doubted by some theologians.  Other parts need to be teased out a little bit.  But everything which is believed now is and was believed by the early Church, just not by the entire early Church.  It was always a part of God's revelation.

The Church, in seeing that there is some disagreement, invokes Her authority to say, yes, the Immaculate Conception IS a part of revelation and those of who you said otherwise are wrong.

The Church never declares new teachings.  It just clarifies what is already there (though sometimes it may be obscure to us).
Reply
#40
(10-25-2012, 06:27 PM)Walty Wrote: Just because some don't recognize it doesn't mean that it isn't in revelation.  Some parts of revelation are doubted by some theologians.  Other parts need to be teased out a little bit.  But everything which is believed now is and was believed by the early Church, just not by the entire early Church.  It was always a part of God's revelation.

The Church, in seeing that there is some disagreement, invokes Her authority to say, yes, the Immaculate Conception IS a part of revelation and those of who you said otherwise are wrong.

The Church never declares new teachings.  It just clarifies what is already there (though sometimes it may be obscure to us).

So these teachings were implicit not explicit? Or explicitly taught by some, and implicit contained in the teaching of others?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)