Scott has responded that Catholics can disagree with popes under certain circumstances. Even if I granted that premise in the example of Peter and Paul, how is that in the slightest exculpatory to the charge that the direction of two popes specifically addressing the instruction of Scholastic Philosophy to the clergy has been flouted?
Scott replies: Even if you granted the premise of Sts. Peter and Paul? How can you NOT grant that premise? The fundamental challenge for Catholics is: "How can a pope be contradicted?" It really doesn't matter if that person challenging is a fellow bishop, a later pope or even laity, fundamentally speaking. Now keeping the fundamental premise in mind - for Catholics, St. Peter IS our first pope, and he was contradicted by St. Paul. If you're not accepting the premise based upon OUR point of view - then we're pretty much done here, as I cannot speak for a premise which is not mine.
Now, that being said you're still talking a matter of DISCIPLINE when it comes to a thought process a given pope or even group of popes wishes to be taught at Catholic universities. Matters of DISCIPLINE CAN CHANGE!
EA continues:
EA continues:
EA continues:
EA said:
EA also said (quoting me first):
Scott replies: If you wish to spend the time to get this quote AND its context translated, fine - but you'll just be spinning your wheels. Even if contextually it says exactly how the "hyper-traditionalist Catholic sites" have represented it, it's still a matter of DISCIPLINE and NOT one of faith and morals. I rejected the citation because it is obscure, not due to its accuracy. Accurate or not, you're not talking a matter of dogma here so the entire premise of this discussion is based in ignorance. So I would not necessarily "reject" the quote itself, but I would reject the relevance of it to this discussion.
I do appreciate your efforts and zeal, but so far as this matter is concerned, they seem misdirected.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
EA continues:
Are any Catholics taking the position that these popes were wrong?Scott replies: No! Because NONE of them are "wrong" on this matter!
EA continues:
It seems to me to be more a case that there are new occupants of the papal and diocesan chairs and that perhaps what was said many years ago by others is of little value.Scott replies: There is "value" to BOTH positions! Again I reiterate, the type of philosophy taught in universities is NOT a matter of faith or morals - it's a matter of DISCIPLINE.
EA continues:
I'm puzzled that Catholics expect Protestants to take seriously the utterances of a magesterium pertaining to faith and morals that Catholics themselves ignore.Scott replies: That would be the "magisterium" you refer to, but again - the topic being discussed here is that of DISCIPLINE and NOT of faith and morals.
EA said:
I'm confident that the practices of providing a diligent and sworn report every three years to the Holy See, as with diocesan Councils of Vigilance held every two months and holding scholasticism in the highest regard, though enjoined by the Holy Father on the bishops of all dioceses, are no longer observed.Scott replies: I too would be confident in this, as well as saddened. I am of the OPINION that Thomist scholasticism should be the philosophy of ALL Catholic universities too.
EA also said (quoting me first):
SW: The next thing I'd say is that the quote from then Fr. Ratzinger is an obscure quote from an obscure source making it very difficult to check on the context. Therefore, without being able to see the context, I reject this quote from Fr. Ratzinger.
EA: The source for the quote in question is from a German Theological Journal article which has not been translated into English; Zum Problem Unfehlbarkeit (Karl Rahner editor, 1971). I have found references to this quote on-line only in citations from German and Portugese sources. Two English sites have a translation of the quote. Both however, are hyper-traditionalist Catholic sites and I doubt you would rely on their word for it. I have located an original edition in German and will have the pertinent section translated myself. I'm sure that your rejection of the quote will be renewed, though on different grounds at that point.
Scott replies: If you wish to spend the time to get this quote AND its context translated, fine - but you'll just be spinning your wheels. Even if contextually it says exactly how the "hyper-traditionalist Catholic sites" have represented it, it's still a matter of DISCIPLINE and NOT one of faith and morals. I rejected the citation because it is obscure, not due to its accuracy. Accurate or not, you're not talking a matter of dogma here so the entire premise of this discussion is based in ignorance. So I would not necessarily "reject" the quote itself, but I would reject the relevance of it to this discussion.
I do appreciate your efforts and zeal, but so far as this matter is concerned, they seem misdirected.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
EA said...
ReplyDeleteScott contends that the subject of the encyclicals issued by Pius X and Leo XIII do not deal with issues of faith and or morals.
Pascendi Dominici Gregis was issued on the heels of Lamentabili Sane (Syllabus Of Errors). From the opening of Lamentabili Sane:
"after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed."
Pascendi Dominici Gregis builds upon the the preceding Lamentabili Sane, they are of a piece. One outlines condemnable errors, the other specifies the corrective actions.
The reason the errors are condemnable is the fact that the pope regarded them as a threat to the faith. By definition, it is about faith. By extension and definition the cure to a threat to the faith also is about FAITH.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has the following to say about encyclicals:
"From the nature of the case encyclicals addressed to the bishops of the world are generally concerned with matters which affect the welfare of the Church at large. They condemn some prevalent form of error, point out dangers which threaten faith or morals, exhort the faithful to constancy, or prescribe remedies for evils foreseen or already existent. In form an encyclical at the present day begins thus — we may take the encyclical "Pascendi" on Modernism as a specimen..."
These encyclicals ARE about faith and morals, despite your denials. They have been abbrogated by Catholics that meanwhile pay lip service to the importance of the magisterium. Peace.
I responded:
ReplyDeleteEA, I am so pleased that you THINK you know MY FAITH better than I do! That the decree Pascendi Dominici Gregis (PDG) was "issued on the heels" of Lamentabili Sane does not make it equivalent to it! Such equivocation is quite invalid in debate! Now are there topics of morality brought up in PDG? Certainly, but the matter of which philosophy is to be taught in Catholic universities/schools is NOT a matter of faith or morals! It is a matter of DISCIPLINE! You may remain stubborn in your ignorance, if you so choose, but your are truly making a fool of yourself in doing so - at least to those who KNOW Catholicism. Need I remind you that NO "document" in its entirety is an infallible "document" - but PARTS OF THEM may be. Your taking a piece of one, out of context, and comparing it to another one (also out of context) is NOT valid argumentation and those who may OBJECTIVELY look at this discussion will certainly see this.
Pax tecum,
Scott<<<