Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > In The News > Catholic News
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #46  
Old Jul 13, '12, 7:52 am
fix fix is offline
 
Join Date: June 2, 2004
Posts: 18,519
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: US theologians call for dialogue with bishops [CNAU]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kompaz View Post
Well, if theology is science, then this very thing is expected.
I cannot imagine why. Would you fly in a plane where the pilot rejects the laws of physics?

Quote:
This about it this way. Assume objective truth exists. If so, someone starting from first principles, should derive a theology which is compatible with the existing one. The very fact that someone (assuming his reasoning itself is sound) can arrive at conclusions which are incompatible serves as a huge red flag. Because if his reasoning is indeed correct, then the existing theology is incorrect. Oops.
We need experts to decide this. Christ left such people. They speak for Him. Her proof that her position is correct is decided by whom?

Quote:
If it was a normal science, then both parties would probably launch detailed investigations, and someone would finally discover who erred and why, and a new version would be agreed upon by everyone.
How many must agree to decide it is true?

Quote:
In my opinion, the Church has entered a counter-reformation period. Arguments are settled from the position of authority, dissenters are forcibly silenced, and blind obedience is revered and anti-intellectualism rules. Such periods are dark periods.

I have little doubt that CDF and the bishops will win this fight, however I am not convinced that it will be a good thing... Oh well. Time will tell. We'll see in 100 years or so.
Authority matters in this case because the authority is the Creator.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old Jul 13, '12, 7:01 pm
Suudy's Avatar
Suudy Suudy is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2004
Posts: 5,043
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: US theologians call for dialogue with bishops [CNAU]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kompaz View Post
Well, if theology is science, then this very thing is expected.
Just for clarity, here's what Aquinas says (source):
Whether Sacred Doctrine is a Science?

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.
__________________
Tiber Swim Team '05

"To love for the sake of being loved is human; to love for the sake of loving is Angelic." -- Alphonse de Lamartine
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old Jul 13, '12, 10:09 pm
Elizabeth502 Elizabeth502 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 19, 2008
Posts: 9,120
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: US theologians call for dialogue with bishops [CNAU]

Quote:
Originally Posted by grannymh View Post
It all depends on what is meant by doctrinal development or experimental theology..
And how. Right?

Some of us know, ahem, firsthand, and rather recently, just what is meant by "doctrinal development." (Think, theological "Conferences." )

(Don't worry, manualman, no slam at you -- or anyone else on this thread! )

Seriously, the problem with the "movement" i just referenced, and undoubtedly many others, is that there is no Catholic identifier before the word "theologian." Now, I am well acquainted with the tradition of intellectual collaboration with other faiths, particularly in certain areas of theology. However, the modernist movement in (Catholic) theology has tended to move away from any religious designation whatsoever, not even "inter-faith" or "ecumenical." It's as if the discipline of theology has become devoid of reliigous content but rather is standing outside of all religious belief/tradition and commenting on it as a neutral observer.

Hmm. That could explain the New Age Drumming, Religiosity of drugs, and
Elimination of Gender as Discussion Topics at the "Theology" conference in question. (Among dozens of other utterly unCatholic topics.)

Btw, manualman, I think you have expressed yourself very well in your posts here.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old Jul 15, '12, 5:05 am
kompaz kompaz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: July 11, 2012
Posts: 136
Religion: Catholic->Atheist
Default Re: US theologians call for dialogue with bishops [CNAU]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fix View Post
We need experts to decide this. Christ left such people. They speak for Him. Her proof that her position is correct is decided by whom?
And how do you know that a mathematician's claim is correct? Because all of mathematics can be deduced from a set of basic axioms, that is how you know. So if a guy's claim follows from the commonly accepted set of basic axioms, and his derivation follows the laws of logic, then it is objectively true. If his axioms are wrong, or his derivation is wrong, then it is not true. As simple as that.

I posit that objective morality must be derivable from an initial set of simple axioms. Consequently, everything that cannot be derived from the core axioms is not objective morality.

The CDF asserts that the theologian's work contradicts the Magisterium. That's true. But the actual question here is: is all of Magisterium indeed derived from basic axioms (and thus true), or, is the Magisterium rather a collection of superstition accumulated over millenia? My understanding of the case at hand is that the CDF did not point out the logical errors in the theologian's work, but simply stated that it contradicts the Magisterium. This is unsatisfactory, because CDF did not demonstrate a proof that the Magiterium is objectively true (in this regard). The claim that the Magisterium is true because it is Magisterium does not fly with me, because it is circular. The claim that Holy Spirit would not let the Church fall into a doctrinal error does not fly with me either, because there are documented instances where the Church would proclaim things which were objectively not true (*cough* geocentrism *cough*).

Most of Magisterium on sexual morality is derived from Augustine in 4th century AD. However, understanding of psychosexual issues has advanced a bit since then, which naturally means that some of Augustine's assumptions may no longer hold, and have to be revised in light of new understanding.

CDF simply maintains the position that the Magisterium cannot be revised. I predict that this position will become increasingly difficult to hold in the future
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old Jul 16, '12, 8:11 am
manualman manualman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2004
Posts: 10,997
Religion: Catholic - no buts.
Default Re: US theologians call for dialogue with bishops [CNAU]

Quote:
Originally Posted by grannymh View Post
It all depends on what is meant by doctrinal development or experimental theology.

If doctrinal development or experimental theology means that an existing doctrine is further explained without changing the basic doctrine, then doctrinal development is in order. If doctrinal development or experimental theology means tweaking a doctrine so that it fits one's modern conceptions of sexual activity, then that tweaking itself has to be discerned in regard to the original doctrines regarding human nature and morals.
I thought of some examples that might help.

"Limbo" was the predominating theological opinion for centuries in regards to what happens to unbaptized children who die before the age of reason. They suffer the effects of the fall, so without Grace, they can't be brought into heaven (precisely conforms to Tradition). They have no personal culpability for their fallenness and don't yet have the capacity to commit actual sins, so it seems out of character for God to assign them to eternal hell. Thus theologians for generations extrapolated that there must be a 'limbo' a place where people can be as happy as their fallen nature possible coul permit, but where they do not enjoy the 'beatific vision' enjoyed by the saints.

It's only in recent decades that this theory has fallen out of favor as more recent theologians recognized that their predecessors had made the mistake of seeing God as governed by 'the rules' rather than God giving US the rules as a gift of love. The Grace of Baptism isn't meant to limit God, but to be a blessing to us. We've come to realize that God may bless unbaptized infants in some other way not revealed to us, so that there IS reason to hope that these souls may be with us in heaven someday.

At first, this newer theological theory probably seemed radical and un-Traditional, maybe even 'modernist' or 'wishy-washy.' But really it grew out of a genuine breakthrough in understanding that previous theologians had placed human limitations on God (not a good idea).

So it's not safe to say that theology is only valid if it confirms and builds on what came before. Sometimes it DOES serve to identify previous mistakes that people carelessly assumed to be doctrinal, but really were only theological speculation, and erroneous ones at that.

Back to earth, Sr. Farley's book is NOT that. SHE thinks it is and asserts that it is. Good thing the church has not just scholars, but divinely guided decision-makers, eh? With limbo, the theologians submitted the new idea of God being larger than He's revealed to us to the Magisterium and the they so far seem to agree. THAT's how doctrinal development actually works. Cooperation between scholars and apostles. Not competition.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old Jul 17, '12, 6:04 am
St Francis St Francis is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 10,016
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: US theologians call for dialogue with bishops [CNAU]

Quote:
Originally Posted by manualman View Post
I thought of some examples that might help.

"Limbo" was the predominating theological opinion for centuries in regards to what happens to unbaptized children who die before the age of reason. They suffer the effects of the fall, so without Grace, they can't be brought into heaven (precisely conforms to Tradition). They have no personal culpability for their fallenness and don't yet have the capacity to commit actual sins, so it seems out of character for God to assign them to eternal hell. Thus theologians for generations extrapolated that there must be a 'limbo' a place where people can be as happy as their fallen nature possible coul permit, but where they do not enjoy the 'beatific vision' enjoyed by the saints.

It's only in recent decades that this theory has fallen out of favor as more recent theologians recognized that their predecessors had made the mistake of seeing God as governed by 'the rules' rather than God giving US the rules as a gift of love. The Grace of Baptism isn't meant to limit God, but to be a blessing to us. We've come to realize that God may bless unbaptized infants in some other way not revealed to us, so that there IS reason to hope that these souls may be with us in heaven someday...snip...
I think it is necessary to clarify that the idea of Limbo was always just a speculation and never considered to be dogma or a Church teaching, per se.
__________________


"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."
-Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P



Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old Jul 17, '12, 6:11 am
St Francis St Francis is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 10,016
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: US theologians call for dialogue with bishops [CNAU]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kompaz View Post
And how do you know that a mathematician's claim is correct? Because all of mathematics can be deduced from a set of basic axioms, that is how you know. So if a guy's claim follows from the commonly accepted set of basic axioms, and his derivation follows the laws of logic, then it is objectively true. If his axioms are wrong, or his derivation is wrong, then it is not true. As simple as that.

I posit that objective morality must be derivable from an initial set of simple axioms. Consequently, everything that cannot be derived from the core axioms is not objective morality.

The CDF asserts that the theologian's work contradicts the Magisterium. That's true. But the actual question here is: is all of Magisterium indeed derived from basic axioms (and thus true), or, is the Magisterium rather a collection of superstition accumulated over millenia? My understanding of the case at hand is that the CDF did not point out the logical errors in the theologian's work, but simply stated that it contradicts the Magisterium. This is unsatisfactory, because CDF did not demonstrate a proof that the Magiterium is objectively true (in this regard). The claim that the Magisterium is true because it is Magisterium does not fly with me, because it is circular.
In isolation, you are correct; however, if a mathematician makes an error which is caught by a panel which reviews papers, do they also have to demonstrate that everything leading up to that error is correct? No, that explanation is assumed, it is elsewhere; it should have been in the education which the erring mathematician received.


Quote:
The claim that Holy Spirit would not let the Church fall into a doctrinal error does not fly with me either, because there are documented instances where the Church would proclaim things which were objectively not true (*cough* geocentrism *cough*).
Geocentrism is not doctrinal.

The Church accepts science as it is taught and does not claim to be a scientific organization.

Quote:
Most of Magisterium on sexual morality is derived from Augustine in 4th century AD. However, understanding of psychosexual issues has advanced a bit since then, which naturally means that some of Augustine's assumptions may no longer hold, and have to be revised in light of new understanding.
However, psychosexual issues has nothing to do with the questions at hand, which are related to morals, which is the purview of moral theologians.
__________________


"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."
-Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P



Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > In The News > Catholic News

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8049Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: KayleighPigg
4829CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4295Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: James_OPL
4027OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: fencersmother
3813SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3377Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3184Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: libralion
3150Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
2963For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: 4Jessie
2703Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:41 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2013, Catholic Answers.