Bride Of Christ

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

I have merely pointed out that the Church does have many definitions of things and many theological and philosophical concepts with which you do not appear to be familiar.  ...  The difficulty comes when the concepts you are trying to discuss in this thread do not appear to have been adequately treated in your classes or obtained by means of scholarly and serious research.  This cannot, in my opinion, be construed as criticism of your courses or programs. 

 

AbrideofChrist,

 

I do understand all of the concepts you're using. I just don't always agree with the way you use these concepts, or the conclusions you drawn from them.

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

Posted Today, 12:28 AM

Sponsa-Christi, on 01 Aug 2013 - 5:39 PM, said:

(And as an aside, I just want to highlight the fact that not all magisterial teachings have to be formally declared "infallible" for them to still be authoritative--so the pool of authoritative sources from which we can draw isn't quite as small as it might seem.)

 

Based upon some of your past responses to things, I didn't realize you understood this point. I'm glad to know that you do.

 

Laurie,

 

Yes, I have understood this point for quite some time.

 

But, at the risk of sounding a little pedantic, just because not all authoritative teachings have to be formally declared "infallible" in order to be authoritative, it does not follow that all non-infallible writings are therefore authoritative.

 

Most theological and canonical writing out there, even while a lot of it might be perfectly orthodox and in harmony with the Church's doctrines, is not authoritative. Often, even those members of the hierarchy who can speak authoritatively in some areas aren't empowered to speak authoritatively in others. 

 

Of course, the opinions of serious theologians and canonists often take some part in the formation of documents which are authoritative. But I think it's important to point out here that this still doesn't mean that theologians and canonists can speak with authority when they're writing simply in their own voice. 

[Laurie]

Laurie,

 

Yes, I have understood this point for quite some time.

 

But, at the risk of sounding a little pedantic, just because not all authoritative teachings have to be formally declared "infallible" in order to be authoritative, it does not follow that all non-infallible writings are therefore authoritative.

 

Most theological and canonical writing out there, even while a lot of it might be perfectly orthodox and in harmony with the Church's doctrines, is not authoritative. Often, even those members of the hierarchy who can speak authoritatively in some areas aren't empowered to speak authoritatively in others. 

 

Of course, the opinions of serious theologians and canonists often take some part in the formation of documents which are authoritative. But I think it's important to point out here that this still doesn't mean that theologians and canonists can speak with authority when they're writing simply in their own voice. 

 

I think you emphasize the "non-authoritativeness" of certain persons/opinions to the point that it becomes a straw horse.

 

I don't think most here are confused about infallibility and the other degrees of formal Church authority.

 

But what is necessary is that arguments are laid forth in a clear, compelling manner, drawing on the Church's intellectual tradition, i.e., the thinkers and languages (rooted in the various disciplines) she has relied upon and found to be worth her while. Going from there, we can then make our best arguments for how to understand the CV vocation.

 

Someone can construct X interpretation. To respond that X interpretation is not, strictly speaking, "authoritative" doesn't get us very far. The answer is to construct another compelling interpreation, likewise leaning on scholarship that is worthy and weighty.

 

The Curia has an entire fleet of theologians, canon lawyers, and philospohers who are consultants. When the CDF calls in Msgr. So-and-So to give his opinion, it's because he is erudite in the intellectual patrimony of the Church. It is based upon such input that teaching documents are formulated, written, and approved. At a certain point, Church teaching is built upon the input and opinions of learned men and women. It doesn't just materialize out of thin air. The CDF doesn't then feel obliged to add in 150 plus foonotes that qualify the teaching, with, "This sentence was Msgr. So-and-So's opinion. We have adopted it as our opinion. You, the faithful reading this document, should rank this sentence a 5 out of a 10 in terms of how seriously you should listen to what this document is teaching."

 

 

 

[reminiscere]

From Blessed John Paul II's first visit to a Roman parish, St. Francis Xavier, as Pope on Sunday, December 3, 1978:

 

"Thank you, thank you, beloved Sisters! May your Bridegroom Jesus reward you for the good you are doing! Continue to serve the Lord "in joy", with generous and intense constancy." http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1978/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19781203_franc-saverio_en.html

 

"Grazie, grazie, Sorelle carissime! Il vostro Sposo Gesù vi ricompensi del bene che fate! Continuate a servire il Signore “in letizia”, con generosa e intensa costanza." http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1978/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19781203_franc-saverio_it.html

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

I think you emphasize the "non-authoritativeness" of certain persons/opinions to the point that it becomes a straw horse.

 

I don't think most here are confused about infallibility and the other degrees of formal Church authority.

 

I suppose we could say that generally in the Catholic world, it’s more important to highlight the fact that a teaching doesn’t have to be a strict matter of infallibility in order for it to be authoritative.

 

But in discussions on consecrated virginity among serious discerners and consecrated virgins themselves, I do think we tend towards the opposite problem. That is, I think we tend to treat expert commentators as though they were truly the last word on a given topic.

 

E.g., Cardinal Burke—of course he’s knowledgeable, but when he comments on issues relating to consecrated virginity, it’s not the same thing as the Church giving a definitive answer to a question. 

 

 

 

But what is necessary is that arguments are laid forth in a clear, compelling manner, drawing on the Church's intellectual tradition, i.e., the thinkers and languages (rooted in the various disciplines) she has relied upon and found to be worth her while. Going from there, we can then make our best arguments for how to understand the CV vocation.

 

Very true! But if we're making arguments on how to understand consecrated virginity based even in part on appeals to authority, we have to be sure that those authorities are actually authoritative.

 

 

 

Someone can construct X interpretation. To respond that X interpretation is not, strictly speaking, "authoritative" doesn't get us very far. 

 

Pointing out that a certain interpretation isn’t authoritative might not move us much farther down the road, but it can keep us from falling off into a ditch! Knowing which interpretations are and are not authoritative can also help us reorient ourselves if we get lost. 

 

 

 

The Curia has an entire fleet of theologians, canon lawyers, and philospohers who are consultants. When the CDF calls in Msgr. So-and-So to give his opinion, it's because he is erudite in the intellectual patrimony of the Church. It is based upon such input that teaching documents are formulated, written, and approved. At a certain point, Church teaching is built upon the input and opinions of learned men and women. It doesn't just materialize out of thin air. The CDF doesn't then feel obliged to add in 150 plus foonotes that qualify the teaching, with, "This sentence was Msgr. So-and-So's opinion. We have adopted it as our opinion. You, the faithful reading this document, should rank this sentence a 5 out of a 10 in terms of how seriously you should listen to what this document is teaching."

 

Yes, of course the Curia utilizes draws upon the expertise of many talented theologians and canonists when it formulates important documents. And true, those documents don't include pages of the kind of hypothetical footnotes you mentioned.

 

But, a document (or a specific interpretation contained therein) only becomes authoritative when it’s published officially in the name of the Church. Using your example…a document from the CDF becomes authoritative by virtue of the fact that the CDF is publishing it under its own official auspices—and not because the world-renowned expert Msgr. X worked on it.

 

And, even if Msgr. X publishes an academic article in his own name expressing his ideas on the very same topic, that article itself would not be authoritative. In this latter instance, Msgr. X would be only speaking for himself, and not on behalf of the Church. 

Edited August 2, 2013 by Sponsa-Christi

[abrideofChrist]

Sponsa Christi,

 

This latest response to Laurie's post troubles me.  The Church has a vast patrimony of theological advances precisely because those who have been trained in theology have contributed a great deal to the Development of Doctrine (yes, I am referring to the book by John Newman) and the sensus fidelium.  While I have no problem with a person highlighting the fact once in a discussion that different statements will have different weight, I cannot help but suspect that focusing on it is distracting to the real matter at hand.  For, if all that people accomplish after being missioned in the Ecclesiastical sciences is the ability to posit a personal private opinion, then why bother have universities at all?  Why not just educate the Pope and priests because some of them will become part of the magisterium?  Why do you post here, if people can dismiss your opinions just as readily as you dismiss Cardinal Burke's (a man who has taught about and administered the Consecration for far longer than you have been alive)?  If you cannot disprove my position with a well reasoned cohesive theory that takes all of the facts and apparent contradictions into consideration then an effective tactic would be to throw doubt upon the probability of the position by appealing to the fact that there are levels of credibility- a rather cheap trick.

 

Our faith has an organic growth in its knowledge about different realities in the Church precisely because there are people who build upon the perennial wisdom possessed by the Church and develop it.  These people are usually those who have been trained in the Ecclesiastical sciences which have, as Laurie pointed out, their own methodologies and specialized vocabulary.  We lose a great deal if we do not pay attention to anything that is not proclaimed dogma or written officially by the Vatican or Magisterium.  I do not want to limit this thread to fit your personal standards for belief, but to keep it as wide open as the Church herself allows for.  If you wish to confine yourself to what you approve of as "authoritative", you are most welcome to do so, if you are able to compile from such sources an alternative cohesive theory of what it means to be Bride of Christ by title and its relationship to the religious nun given the facts and seemingly contradictory ones involved.  Otherwise, kindly refrain from posting distracting and detracting thoughts on this thread because we will only end up in circles and I'm sure you do not want this anymore than I do. 

 

Further, please respect the fact that those trained in the Ecclesiastical sciences will accept far more than you do for belief and that if we choose to utilize this in our arguments, your own position must be able to positively provide a rebuttal to what others posit in a solid and cohesive manner for any contrary opinion of yours to have much weight.  It is not the fault of others if you choose to be self limiting in what you personally accept as a fact or as a probable fact in this discussion without clear evidence to the contrary based off of your accepted sources which directly contradicts them.

 

Again, this is not personal.  I merely want us to stay on topic and not be distracted.  Thank you for your understanding.

[Laurie]

I suppose we could say that generally in the Catholic world, it’s more important to highlight the fact that a teaching doesn’t have to be a strict matter of infallibility in order for it to be authoritative.

 

But in discussions on consecrated virginity among serious discerners and consecrated virgins themselves, I do think we tend towards the opposite problem. That is, I think we tend to treat expert commentators as though they were truly the last word on a given topic.

 

E.g., Cardinal Burke—of course he’s knowledgeable, but when he comments on issues relating to consecrated virginity, it’s not the same thing as the Church giving a definitive answer to a question. 

 

 

Very true! But if we're making arguments on how to understand consecrated virginity based even in part on appeals to authority, we have to be sure that those authorities are actually authoritative.

 

 

Pointing out that a certain interpretation isn’t authoritative might not move us much farther down the road, but it can keep us from falling off into a ditch! Knowing which interpretations are and are not authoritative can also help us reorient ourselves if we get lost. 

 

 

Yes, of course the Curia utilizes draws upon the expertise of many talented theologians and canonists when it formulates important documents. And true, those documents don't include pages of the kind of hypothetical footnotes you mentioned.

 

But, a document (or a specific interpretation contained therein) only becomes authoritative when it’s published officially in the name of the Church. Using your example…a document from the CDF becomes authoritative by virtue of the fact that the CDF is publishing it under its own official auspices—and not because the world-renowned expert Msgr. X worked on it.

 

And, even if Msgr. X publishes an academic article in his own name expressing his ideas on the very same topic, that article itself would not be authoritative. In this latter instance, Msgr. X would be only speaking for himself, and not on behalf of the Church. 

 

I think you missed my entire point. All of it. I don't think anyone here is unclear about the levels of authority that can be found in the Magisterium's teaching, or by the fact that a theologian can participate in writing a teaching document that has heft & authority to it that his own writings don't have. OBVIOUSLY a Magisterial document doesn't have "authority" because Msgr. X wrote it. (?) Who really thinks it does? Again, this comes across as a straw man. A whole lot of time is spent clarifying something that doesn't need clarification, whereas the point that I did make has not been addressed.

 

The point I did make is that it takes critical thought, scholarship, interpretation, and the weighing of opinions to even CREATE teaching documents in the first place. I conclude from this that it is very much worth our while to seriously weigh and measure the works of philosophers and theologians when we are doing our own research and not blithely dismiss their work as "non-authoritative" or "mere opinions." It's rather naive to think we should wait on absolutely clear declarations from the Magisterium on a topic, when the Magisterium herself doesn't operate this way. She couldn't. Otherwise she'd be deadlocked in inactivity. She buckles down, does her best work, and comes to conclusions.

 

The point is that dismissing this or that work or thought or insight as "non-authoritative" doesn't advance the discussion. What's helpful is to spend the time to construct solid arguments based on solid sources and substantially contribute to the discussion at hand.

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

AbrideofChrist,

 

I think you’re misunderstanding me somewhat—I’ve never said that the work of theologians and canonists isn’t important or necessary for the development of doctrine. It certainly is! Yes, I agree it’s a good thing when educated people publish opinions. And yes, I know that the Church draws on educated opinions when she does seek to articulate her authoritative teachings.

 

So I’m not saying that we shouldn’t listen to your arguments, or to the opinions of experts. All I’m saying is that: not all writings on consecrated virginity are authoritative, and we shouldn’t refer to non-authoritative writings as though they were the official teaching of the Church.

 

I really didn’t intend to give an unwarranted amount of attention this point. But, one thing I noticed on this thread is that legitimate questions (like: How do we explain the references to nuns as brides of Christ in so many Church documents if nuns can’t properly be called brides of Christ?) seem to be brushed aside by arguments based primarily on appeals to authorities which may not actually be as authoritative as participants here have been lead to believe.

 

This isn’t a personal criticism aimed at anyone here, but in general I do think that we can fall into error just as easily by attributing undue authority to a non-authoritative source as we can by denying legitimate teaching authority in the Church. 

Edited August 2, 2013 by Sponsa-Christi

[abrideofChrist]

Sponsa Christi, I suggest then, for you to address the specific points in my theory with your specific rebuttals.  Otherwise, let's move on with the discussion.  Fair enough?

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

I think you missed my entire point. All of it. I don't think anyone here is unclear about the levels of authority that can be found in the Magisterium's teaching, or by the fact that a theologian can participate in writing a teaching document that has heft & authority to it that his own writings don't have. OBVIOUSLY a Magisterial document doesn't have "authority" because Msgr. X wrote it. (?) Who really thinks it does? Again, this comes across as a straw man. A whole lot of time is spent clarifying something that doesn't need clarification, whereas the point that I did make has not been addressed.

 

Laurie,

 

With all due respect to everyone here on VS, I do think this was a point that needed to be clarified. There have been plenty of times here when questions about consecrated virgins have been answered with something along the lines of: "The Church teaches X, as is evidenced by Card. Burke's presentation at X." (Now of course, it could be that Cardinal Burke was simply quoting or paraphrasing the Church's teaching on something, but an interpretation of the Rite doesn't become Church teaching just because Card. Burke--or Sr. Sharon Holland, or a canonist CV, or five different canonist CVs, etc.--said so.)

 

In all honesty, I truly was not sure that this point was generally understood.

 

 

 

The point I did make is that it takes critical thought, scholarship, interpretation, and the weighing of opinions to even CREATE teaching documents in the first place. I conclude from this that it is very much worth our while to seriously weigh and measure the works of philosophers and theologians when we are doing our own research and not blithely dismiss their work as "non-authoritative" or "mere opinions." It's rather naive to think we should wait on absolutely clear declarations from the Magisterium on a topic, when the Magisterium herself doesn't operate this way. She couldn't. Otherwise she'd be deadlocked in inactivity. She buckles down, does her best work, and comes to conclusions.

 

Yes, once again, I know that expert opinions and scholarship help shape what will eventually become authoritative Church teaching. Expert opinions, thoughts, interpretations, and scholarship are very good and necessary things!

 

However, noting the fact that an expert's opinion is ultimately just his opinion is not the same thing as blithely dismissing his work. I would even say that taking care to note which interpretations are authoritative and which are simply expert opinions is an important part of responsible scholarship. 

 

 

 

The point is that dismissing this or that work or thought or insight as "non-authoritative" doesn't advance the discussion. What's helpful is to spend the time to construct solid arguments based on solid sources and substantially contribute to the discussion at hand.

 

I really do mean this respectfully, but treating opinions as though they were authoritative doesn't help advance the conversation, either. Doing so can prematurely shut down valuable insights or prevent good questions from being asked. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

Sponsa Christi, I suggest then, for you to address the specific points in my theory with your specific rebuttals.  Otherwise, let's move on with the discussion.  Fair enough?

 

Fair enough!

[Laurie]

Laurie,

 

With all due respect to everyone here on VS, I do think this was a point that needed to be clarified. There have been plenty of times here when questions about consecrated virgins have been answered with something along the lines of: "The Church teaches X, as is evidenced by Card. Burke's presentation at X." (Now of course, it could be that Cardinal Burke was simply quoting or paraphrasing the Church's teaching on something, but an interpretation of the Rite doesn't become Church teaching just because Card. Burke--or Sr. Sharon Holland, or a canonist CV, or five different canonist CVs, etc.--said so.)

 

In all honesty, I truly was not sure that this point was generally understood.

 

 

Yes, once again, I know that expert opinions and scholarship help shape what will eventually become authoritative Church teaching. Expert opinions, thoughts, interpretations, and scholarship are very good and necessary things!

 

However, noting the fact that an expert's opinion is ultimately just his opinion is not the same thing as blithely dismissing his work. I would even say that taking care to note which interpretations are authoritative and which are simply expert opinions is an important part of responsible scholarship. 

 

 

I really do mean this respectfully, but treating opinions as though they were authoritative doesn't help advance the conversation, either. Doing so can prematurely shut down valuable insights or prevent good questions from being asked. 

 

I feel like we are constantly having two different conversations.

 

I have never gotten the impression here on this thread that people are confusing Magisterial teaching with other kinds of intellectual thought and analysis about the CV vocation.

 

Here's an example. I explained why I think a constitutive sacramental brings about an ontological change. I quoted a theologian. I didn't hem and haw and say maybe it brings about a change, or I hope it brings about a change, or 80 of 100 theologians thinks it brings about a change.

 

I said, here is what a constitutive sacramental is. Here is how a theologican describes it, and the words he uses are consistent with the words used in describing an ontological change, and, add to that, I think he is correct. It's not the same as a sacrament, but it's important in the life of the Church.

 

You responded that the Church doesn't teach authoritatively that a constitutive sacrament changes the ontological nature of a thing.

 

Problem is, I never said it WAS taught authoritatively. Again, straw man.

 

I brought up a solid line of definition and analysis and used a solid theologian.

 

As I see it, advancing the discussion would consist of doing some research and some thinking on the topic, and then coming back to say, interesting. You make X arguments that it seems to bring about an ontological change. But I see this theologian has something else to say. And it matches my own line of reasoning, which is X.

 

That's what I mean when I say, let's advance the discussion.

 

To just object that the Church doesn't teach something authoritatively, when the others here are not confused about what is or isn't authoritative, doesn't help the matter.

 

I do get the sense that you don't listen or read carefully. I get the impression that you think ahead of time you already know what someone thinks and where they are coming from and you then address that assumption instead of the discussion at hand.

 

When people bring up Cardinal Burke or Sister Holland, it's not because they need schooling on what their roles in the teaching authority of the Church are. It's because Cardinal Burke and Sister Holland have excellent credentials, and have been entrusted with weighty roles in the Church, such that to simply write off their thoughts as "opinions" equal to every other person's opinion on God's green earth, comes across as flippant and ill-judged.

 

[abrideofChrist]

 I would even say that taking care to note which interpretations are authoritative and which are simply expert opinions is an important part of responsible scholarship.

 

Actually, it is part of the reader's responsibility to weigh the sources and not the scholar's to clarify every time they quote or cite something to what degree it must be believed!  If this is all you will be doing with my points, let's not go into that discussion because there is no reason for doing so because it will again be circular:  "I disagree with ABrideOfChrist because the Rite is only the Rite or because what Burke says here is just his private opinion!  Or because this is only ABOC's interpretation of xYZ words!"  How helpful is your interpretation of mine?  What we really need is a cohesive well argued opposing thesis because otherwise we will CONTINUE to spin our wheels.  In such an argument you could limit yourself to the sources you consider to be authoritative and you can even give the relative weight you feel should be assigned to each source for the benefit of those following this thread!  But please make it a strong argument that encompasses the whole of mine and addresses all of it in a way that makes holistic sense.  Thank you.

[abrideofChrist]

Laurie, thank you!  You have clearly outlined how a discussion ought to be conducted!  At each point, people in the discussion should do the following (I am synthesizing what Laurie said for the sake of the drive by posters who think they have addressed the issues with copied and pasted quotes to make this easier for them to understand how to properly advance their position):

 

1) READ the post carefully and the argument in it carefully. 

2) Do any research that must be conducted to respond thoughtfully to the argument if you oppose it.

3) Give a reasoned demonstration as to why you believe what you do, backed up by your research.  Just copying and pasting is not a reasoned demonstration. 

4)  Keep to the original topic (found in the first couple of posts!)

 

If you need a concrete example of what this looks like, see Laurie's post above!

 

And there you have it!  A way of conducting yourself in a discussion online.  Props and thanks again, Laurie!

[Laurie]

Good, ABC, I'm glad you like the direction this is going in.

 

One thing I think we have to keep in mind is the person who originated the thread to begin with. If that person (in this instance ABC) frames a topic in a certain way, and is interested in deep discussion and analysis, than we should try to keep to the original intention of the thread.

 

I mean, if I started a thread on silly Latin puns, hopefully everyone who did chime in would do so with, well, silly Latin puns! Or make a case for why silly Greek puns are better! Or something relevant to the thread as I had envisioned it.