Syllabus Of Errors Vs Nostra Aetate/dignitatus Humanae

[Basilisa Marie]

NOT TRYING TO START A WAR, GUYS. 

 

BUT.

 

So I have this "articulated" class (master's and undergrads both), and I've been talking about theology with one of the undergrads a lot, after class.  Today we were talking about how doctrine develops over time, and we got stuck on how to reconcile the Syllabus of Errors with Nostra Aetate and Dignitatus Humanae.  Because a surface reading makes it look like there are contradictions.  

 

So how would any of you try to explain it?  

 

I'm also having issues on the whole what is dogma/what is doctrine/what does all this look like issue.  It seems to me like him and I have different interpretations of the dogma/doctrine divide, so do you guys have any ideas of tackling THAT issue?  

 

Much appreciated. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Personally I do not think it is out of the question to suggest that Nostra Aetate and  Dignitatis Humanae may need clarification and correction by later documents. Back before he was elected Pope, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said that some parts of Gaudium et Spes were "downright Pelagian". I do not think anybody would accuse him of being unfaithful by that statement. If, as he said at the time, some of Gaudium et Spes' terminology was borderline Pelagian, then it stands to reason that the Church could, perhaps should correct it. Otherwise it could potentially scandalize those still weak in the faith. If Gaudium et Spes could be corrected, then why not anything else?

It would not be a rejection of the entire council. It would not be a repudiation of infallible doctrine. Just a correction of what we might call overly enthusiastic writings. :P

Btw, with regards to the second part, have you read Avery Cardinal Dulles' Magisterium? I have it on my shelf, actually started it a while back and never got the chance to finish it, but I know it does deal with levels of the Magisterium and whatnot.

[Basilisa Marie]

No, but I love Dulles, so I'll check it out.  

 

 I agree that the documents are super vague (and that they're vague for good reason - it seems like they weren't ready to get clarification yet).  So...could you say the same thing about the Syllabus? In a certain sense, correction of enthusiastic writings?  I know the syllabus is inherently a summary and not nuanced, but refers to much more nuanced documents.  

[Nihil Obstat]

No, but I love Dulles, so I'll check it out.  

 

 I agree that the documents are super vague (and that they're vague for good reason - it seems like they weren't ready to get clarification yet).  So...could you say the same thing about the Syllabus? In a certain sense, correction of enthusiastic writings?  I know the syllabus is inherently a summary and not nuanced, but refers to much more nuanced documents.  

Everybody always recommends Magisterium when that sort of thing comes up. While I have not finished it, I can confirm that it is very well written. :)

 

If would say, and this is just me personally, that the Syllabus potentially has room for expansion and clarification (perhaps ideally from supplementary documents), but not actual correction. At the same time, due to its nature as a kind of summary document, I would not be surprised if it was considered to have room for correction in the case that its referencing of other documents was imperfect. I do not know that such a situation exists, in fact I suspect it does not.

I am really not familiar enough with the nature of the Syllabus to say. :P What level of authority is assigned to it? Is it, like Vatican II, only as authoritative as the doctrines (or in the case of the Syllabus, other documents) to which it makes reference? Or does the Syllabus have authority of its own? Somewhere in between? I do not know the answer to those questions, although I am sure somebody does.

[KnightofChrist]

As I am pressed for time, and it isn't easy to write detailed posts on one's phone, I'll just go with "what Nihil said" for now. I would only add that Nostra Aetate/Dignitatus Humanae seem to contradict Quanta Cura as well.

 

 

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm

[Apotheoun]

Avery Dulles' writings on the filioque  and on ecclesiology are truly deficient.  If his other works are similar I would not recommend him as a good source for anything theological.

[Basilisa Marie]

Avery Dulles' writings on the filioque  and on ecclesiology are truly deficient.  If his other works are similar I would not recommend him as a good source for anything theological.

 

I think the latest edition of his Models of the Church is excellent.  :|  

[Apotheoun]

Vatican II's teachings on a number of topics are novel from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective, and by "traditional" I mean post-Tridentine Roman viewpoint.  Nevertheless, that synod was intended to be merely pastoral in nature, and so I see no reason for Western Catholics to be concerned.

I think the latest edition of his Models of the Church is excellent.   :|

From an Eastern Christian perspective it is extremely deficient.  We do not need to search for a model of the Church.  The Church's structure is clearly delineated in sacred scripture and the patristic tradition.

[Brother Adam]

Vatican II's teachings on a number of topics are novel from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective, and by "traditional" I mean post-Tridentine Roman viewpoint.  Nevertheless, that synod was intended to be merely pastoral in nature, and so I see no reason for Western Catholics to be concerned.

From an Eastern Christian perspective it is extremely deficient.  We do not need to search for a model of the Church.  The Church's structure is clearly delineated in sacred scripture and the patristic tradition.

 

Yes. This was a question thrown at me when I was up for diocesan certification and my answer rejecting the premise of Dulles' argument ticked off the head of the committee.

[Apotheoun]

Yes. This was a question thrown at me when I was up for diocesan certification and my answer rejecting the premise of Dulles' argument ticked off the head of the committee.

Since you are working at a parish I guess it is safe to assume that you got your certification.  

 

As far as Dulles' views on the Church are concerned, they seem quite untraditional to me.  I always worry when a theologian thinks he must reinvent theology in his writings.

[Nihil Obstat]

I would love to hear more of this, because this is the first time I have heard intelligent criticism of Dulles. Do you mind going into detail?

[mortify]

NOT TRYING TO START A WAR, GUYS. 

 

BUT.

 

So I have this "articulated" class (master's and undergrads both), and I've been talking about theology with one of the undergrads a lot, after class.  Today we were talking about how doctrine develops over time, and we got stuck on how to reconcile the Syllabus of Errors with Nostra Aetate and Dignitatus Humanae.  Because a surface reading makes it look like there are contradictions.  

 

So how would any of you try to explain it?  

 

I'm also having issues on the whole what is dogma/what is doctrine/what does all this look like issue.  It seems to me like him and I have different interpretations of the dogma/doctrine divide, so do you guys have any ideas of tackling THAT issue?  

 

Much appreciated. 

 

What is one major point you find contradictory?

[mortify]

Ironically I brought up a very similar thread years ago, although it was met with much more... resistance

[Evangetholic]

Apotheoun how is it possible for you  to belong to a Church that subject to the Bishop of Rome's authority and disagree with him about whether or not Vatican II is an ecumenical council?  (This is a serious question--"no shade" as they say in the hood.)

[Apotheoun]

Apotheoun how is it possible for you  to belong to a Church that subject to the Bishop of Rome's authority and disagree with him about whether or not Vatican II is an ecumenical council?  (This is a serious question--"no shade" as they say in the hood.)

I should start by saying that Melkite Catholics do not believe that our Church is "subject to" or in "submission to" the bishop of Rome (see the comments made by Patriarch Gregory III Laham quoted in post #15 in the thread entitled "Melkites"); instead, we hold that the Roman Church is in communion with our Church, and we are in communion with the Roman Church. Communion is not about one bishop or Church ruling over another bishop or Church. Communion - rightly understood - is about reciprocal fellowship.

 

Now, as far as ecumenical councils are concerned, the Melkite Catholic Church recognizes only the Seven Great Councils of the first millennium as being truly ecumenical, that is, as binding upon all Christians. The councils held by the Roman Church, or by the Eastern Churches for that matter, during the course of the second millennium are held to be only particular synods of the Church that celebrated them.  

 

I have gone into greater detail about all of this a few years ago in a thread called:  Melkites