Critique this analysis of papal infallibility
#11
(11-25-2019, 09:32 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: Liberals are perfectly happy to say JPII's declaration that only men can be priests is not infallible despite it using the appropriate formulas. So clearly that is exactly the case. Of course, if traditionalists think the explicit promotion of religious liberty in contradiction to previous teachings is questionable, that is being disobedient. So whatever.

Right. That one, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are  the ones that come to mind when I think "crystal clear infallibility." But everything else seems murkier...
[-] The following 2 users Like Lonion's post:
  • Augustinian, Markie Boy
Reply
#12
(11-25-2019, 04:31 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: OK let me ask this another way.  I'm getting very frustrated with this topic and am probably about to rage quit this forum if I can't get an actual response here.  

1) When is it permissible to disagree with non-infallible teachings - not your personal opinion but what the Church says, with a reference.
2) What is the consequence for disagreeing with non-infallible teachings?  It is not heresy or schism, so what is it?  Sin?  Venial or mortal?  Nothing?

Everyone on this forum has something that does not please them in some way or another about the Church.  So let's hear the justifications for feeling this way.  As far as I can tell, "religious submission" is what is required, but I cannot find a single document that states what happens if one does not provide this.  This leads me to believe that nothing happens when one does not exercise religious submission in regard to non-infallible teachings.  However, I cannot get a straight answer about this anywhere.  As I said, this is getting extremely frustrating.

1) If you look at the exposition in the current Code of Canon Law can. 752, you will see that when the Pope is not teaching infallibly, or when the bishops teach, we're to give a religious submission of the intellect and will.  This can only be in accordance to what Vatican I teaches on natural reason: "God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.  The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason."  If two teachings given in succession which beg a religious submission of the intellect and will, contradict one another, without condemnation of the previous teaching, natural reasoning demands that previous teaching is binding, while the current opposing teaching is to be treated as specious contradiction.

If a previous Pope taught error in his ordinary teaching office, it would have to be condemned before it is contradicted by a subsequent Pope teaching in his ordinary teaching office. 

2) If you behave in a contumelious fashion toward the binding teachings of the Popes and bishops which demand only a religious submission of the intellect and will without good reason, (i.e., good reason being presence of a contradiction to natural reason, equal authority, or infallible authority,) then it would simply be an evil act of grave matter.  You may be guilty of a mortal sin against the first commandment if you commit that matter with full knowledge and consent of the will.

However, if you have good reason and are certain in your position, then you would be guilty of nothing.  The worst I could see happening is your community may shun you and your priest (if you have recourse to a diocesan priest) may not be as obliging when you wish to make appointments for the sacraments.  But that's only if your position is public.
[-] The following 1 user Likes yablabo's post:
  • Imperator Caesar Trump
Reply
#13
(11-25-2019, 09:25 PM)Lonion Wrote:
(11-25-2019, 07:10 PM)The27thPsalm Wrote: 49. There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent. This is particularly true in the area of legitimate theological speculation and research. When conclusions reached by such professional theological work prompt a scholar to dissent from noninfallible received teaching, the norms of licit dissent come into play. They require of him careful respect for the consciences of those who lack his special competence or opportunity for judicious investigation. These norms also require setting forth his dissent with propriety and with regard for the gravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced on it.

...

It seems to say that "when" is whenever it's non-infallible and your objection is serious, which I take to be whenever your can honestly argue the Magisterium taught wrong from Tradition/Scripture, and when you do this there is no sin or consequence (for your second question). I think the one thing I "dissent" on is in line with this, the Magisterium usually teaches amillenialism while I am a millenialist. This is the closest thing I've ever seen to an answer on this from the Church, this statement.

Followup question, though I realize we're all to an extent grasping, so this isn't directed at anyone in particular.

To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church does not have an official list of infallible teachings. Therefore, how would one even know whether such-and-such teaching is infallible or not, and therefore whether such a licit dissent could be allowed? Since paragraph 49 specifically mentions noninfallible teachings?

Heck, in such a vacuum of clarity, I can't help but wonder if the "infallible" "status" of some doctrine could itself be subject to such a form of licit dissent. Unless it's absolutely, crystal clear. Can't tell you how many conversations I've seen over whether some teaching counts as a "matter of faith and morals" or not... Let alone how any infallible statement is supposed to be interpreted - it would have to be an infallible interpretation of an infallible statement... :crazy:

"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium."  Vatican I...has all the answers as far as I'm concerned.

The CCC is what happens when someone tries to make a list...and we all know what a travesty that is.

It's up to us to seek.
[-] The following 2 users Like yablabo's post:
  • antiquarian, Imperator Caesar Trump
Reply
#14
(11-25-2019, 10:06 PM)yablabo Wrote: 1) If you look at the exposition in the current Code of Canon Law can. 752, you will see that when the Pope is not teaching infallibly, or when the bishops teach, we're to give a religious submission of the intellect and will.  This can only be in accordance to what Vatican I teaches on natural reason: "God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.  The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason."  If two teachings given in succession which beg a religious submission of the intellect and will, contradict one another, without condemnation of the previous teaching, natural reasoning demands that previous teaching is binding, while the current opposing teaching is to be treated as specious contradiction.

If a previous Pope taught error in his ordinary teaching office, it would have to be condemned before it is contradicted by a subsequent Pope teaching in his ordinary teaching office. 

2) If you behave in a contumelious fashion toward the binding teachings of the Popes and bishops which demand only a religious submission of the intellect and will without good reason, (i.e., good reason being presence of a contradiction to natural reason, equal authority, or infallible authority,) then it would simply be an evil act of grave matter.  You may be guilty of a mortal sin against the first commandment if you commit that matter with full knowledge and consent of the will.

However, if you have good reason and are certain in your position, then you would be guilty of nothing.  The worst I could see happening is your community may shun you and your priest (if you have recourse to a diocesan priest) may not be as obliging when you wish to make appointments for the sacraments.  But that's only if your position is public.

There's something else that just occurred to me about this in the post Vatican II era. Namely the preoccupation with pastoral concerns. Take girl altar boys, for instance. The CDF stated that bishops should consider
Quote:"among other things the sensibilities of the faithful, the reasons which would motivate such permission and the different liturgical settings and congregations which gather for the Holy Mass."

To me this indicates on this topic that expression of dissent is not only always permitted but is the laity's obligation. After all, we want to help inform the bishop to the greatest extent possible what our sensibilities are at all times. Pastoral needs are a moving target as well, so it's not just a one and done decision. There is no point at which the decision of the priest or bishop would ever be a final word that prevented dissent on this topic based solely on preference alone. At least, that is what the CDF is saying about altar boys. I feel like this applies to many different things about the Novus Ordo. After all, with so much variation and possible liturgical options, there is no one true Mass. The decision for what a specific Mass looks like is assumedly informed by pastoral needs. Therefore, endless griping seems warranted. 
I think this logic is pretty sound unless I'm missing something about all the trappings of the Mass not being informed by parish sensibilities.
Reply
#15
(11-25-2019, 10:06 PM)yablabo Wrote: If two teachings given in succession which beg a religious submission of the intellect and will, contradict one another, without condemnation of the previous teaching, natural reasoning demands that previous teaching is binding, while the current opposing teaching is to be treated as specious contradiction.

If a previous Pope taught error in his ordinary teaching office, it would have to be condemned before it is contradicted by a subsequent Pope teaching in his ordinary teaching office. 
This was a principle that I have heard many times, and I think it makes sense; I agree with it entirely.  Is there a specific theologian or pope who has articulated this point?  I ask for apologetic purposes, not because I do not agree with it.
Reply
#16
(11-27-2019, 09:56 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote:
(11-25-2019, 10:06 PM)yablabo Wrote: If two teachings given in succession which beg a religious submission of the intellect and will, contradict one another, without condemnation of the previous teaching, natural reasoning demands that previous teaching is binding, while the current opposing teaching is to be treated as specious contradiction.

If a previous Pope taught error in his ordinary teaching office, it would have to be condemned before it is contradicted by a subsequent Pope teaching in his ordinary teaching office. 
This was a principle that I have heard many times, and I think it makes sense; I agree with it entirely.  Is there a specific theologian or pope who has articulated this point?  I ask for apologetic purposes, not because I do not agree with it.

I don't know of any popes who have articulated this explicitly, but I believe it is sound according to natural reasoning and implicit in the defining documents of the Church, teachings of Vatican I, and scripture and tradition.  For example, we know a man cannot have two masters: he cannot serve both God and Mammon.  That being the case, one Pope cannot teach something in a binding fashion, die and have his successor bind the opposite on the faithful under the same authority.  Vatican I tells us that truth can never be in opposition to truth.  By natural reason, we know something shady is going on if we're commanded to submit our intellects and wills to the belief that something exists while it does not exist at the same time.  We cannot possibly submit to both at the same time.  Further, it is of a deceptive nature to oppose an authoritative statement from a position of authority without any condemnation of a or the previous position. 

So, in absence of a condemnation, it seems to me according to what is implied in scripture and tradition and by Popes in their writings and according to natural reason, the previous binds if the opposite or contrary is taught by a later authority in his ordinary teaching office.

Now I'm not saying that the next Pope has to launch the corpse of the previous Pope into the Tiber from a catapult to get his point across that the previous Pope taught error on some subject, but something explicit has to be done.

This is why you see canons and/or condemnations following dogmatic definitions: because the contrary and contradictory errors are being condemned to keep people from the confusion of attempting to serve two masters.
Reply
#17
(11-26-2019, 06:16 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: To me this indicates on this topic that expression of dissent is not only always permitted but is the laity's obligation. After all, we want to help inform the bishop to the greatest extent possible what our sensibilities are at all times. Pastoral needs are a moving target as well, so it's not just a one and done decision. There is no point at which the decision of the priest or bishop would ever be a final word that prevented dissent on this topic based solely on preference alone. At least, that is what the CDF is saying about altar boys. I feel like this applies to many different things about the Novus Ordo. After all, with so much variation and possible liturgical options, there is no one true Mass. The decision for what a specific Mass looks like is assumedly informed by pastoral needs. Therefore, endless griping seems warranted. 
I think this logic is pretty sound unless I'm missing something about all the trappings of the Mass not being informed by parish sensibilities.

*my emphasis added to your quote

This is something that my dad lamented.  He said when he was a young man he could go anywhere in the world, practically speaking, and be at home at Mass.  But after the 1970's, he said all that changed, and he thought that was a real loss for the lay people.
Reply
#18
(11-25-2019, 09:25 PM)Lonion Wrote:
(11-25-2019, 07:10 PM)The27thPsalm Wrote: 49. There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent. This is particularly true in the area of legitimate theological speculation and research. When conclusions reached by such professional theological work prompt a scholar to dissent from noninfallible received teaching, the norms of licit dissent come into play. They require of him careful respect for the consciences of those who lack his special competence or opportunity for judicious investigation. These norms also require setting forth his dissent with propriety and with regard for the gravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced on it.

...

It seems to say that "when" is whenever it's non-infallible and your objection is serious, which I take to be whenever your can honestly argue the Magisterium taught wrong from Tradition/Scripture, and when you do this there is no sin or consequence (for your second question). I think the one thing I "dissent" on is in line with this, the Magisterium usually teaches amillenialism while I am a millenialist. This is the closest thing I've ever seen to an answer on this from the Church, this statement.

Followup question, though I realize we're all to an extent grasping, so this isn't directed at anyone in particular.

To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church does not have an official list of infallible teachings. Therefore, how would one even know whether such-and-such teaching is infallible or not, and therefore whether such a licit dissent could be allowed? Since paragraph 49 specifically mentions noninfallible teachings?

Heck, in such a vacuum of clarity, I can't help but wonder if the "infallible" "status" of some doctrine could itself be subject to such a form of licit dissent. Unless it's absolutely, crystal clear. Can't tell you how many conversations I've seen over whether some teaching counts as a "matter of faith and morals" or not... Let alone how any infallible statement is supposed to be interpreted - it would have to be an infallible interpretation of an infallible statement... :crazy:


This is the center of it to me.  If Papal Infallibility were so clear from the beginning - why can they not agree which statements were and were not infallible over history?  No such lists exists because nobody can agree.

That picture in itself is parallel to the reason Sola Scriptura isn't correct, as it's resulted in 40,000 denominations.
Reply
#19
(11-27-2019, 10:33 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(11-26-2019, 06:16 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: so much variation and possible liturgical options, there is no one true Mass. The decision for what a specific Mass looks like is assumedly informed by pastoral needs. Therefore, endless griping seems warranted. 
I think this logic is pretty sound unless I'm missing something about all the trappings of the Mass not being informed by parish sensibilities.

*my emphasis added to your quote

This is something that my dad lamented.  He said when he was a young man he could go anywhere in the world, practically speaking, and be at home at Mass.  But after the 1970's, he said all that changed, and he thought that was a real loss for the lay people.

Whilst I am neither a mathematician nor a liturgist, with the help of my Missal and my calculator, I've determined that there AT LEAST 57,600 'different' Masses that can be celebrated in strict conformity to the rubrics.

Multiplicity of Masses (or How Many Permutations are Possible in the NO?)

Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)