Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Peace]

50 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The broader question to ask is whether or not Familiaris is something that can be contradicted. Because obviously the teachings in F.C. are not new ones. If indeed a novelty does exist - not saying it does or does not - it is in Amoris, not Familiaris. How do we treat novel doctrines? I believe the line of reasoning framed in that way is more fruitful.

I think you have to respect the tradition. If somebody wants to make a big change they carry the burden of proof. But I don't think you can go so far as to say "older" = correct and "newer" = wrong (not that this is necessarily your argument). I think we went through this in the past when discussing the change from the EF to the NO...

If you ask whether Familiaris can be contradicted I think you are still left with the same problem - do you and I decide whether it can be contradicted, or does the pope and the other bishops decide for us? 

Let's say that tonight both you and I do a "great" analysis and firmly conclude that Familiaris cannot be contradicted. Two days later the pope comes out and is like "it can be contradicted and that is exactly what we are going to do". A large majority of bishop agree. We look at the reasons they give for their decisions and they appear entirely illogical and ridiculous to us. Heck, this may not be too far from reality pretty soon. 

What are we to do then? Submit and follow them even though it makes no sense to us, or be like "Nah. What you bishop guys are saying doesn't make sense to me, I'll just follow whatever priests break off and decide not to follow the new rule."

I dunno what you do there. Just pray that it doesn't come down to that I guess.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, what did Vatican I say with regards to tradition and the Pope's role as a teacher and interpreter of the faith? Specifically that his role is not to introduce anything new, but to transmit faithfully what has been passed down.

If you are conceding at the outset that Amoris Laetitia is a novelty then from the perspective of orthodox Catholicism the debate is already over. There are no novel teachings in Catholicism.    

[Amppax]

3 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Well, what did Vatican I say with regards to tradition and the Pope's role as a teacher and interpreter of the faith? Specifically that his role is not to introduce anything new, but to transmit faithfully what has been passed down.

If you are conceding at the outset that Amoris Laetitia is a novelty then from the perspective of orthodox Catholicism the debate is already over. There are no novel teachings in Catholicism.    

This. Catholic teaching develops, it doesn't change. The burden of proof is to show that AL, if differing from FC, is a development and not a rejection of it's fundamental teaching. @Peace I'd highly recommend the Scott Eric Alt article I shared earlier. In terms of Catholic writers, he has been among the more vociferous in proclaiming AL is not a change, and that it is in continuity with what came before. His analysis is very evenhanded, and I think you'll appreciate it. 

[Peace]

7 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Well, what did Vatican I say with regards to tradition and the Pope's role as a teacher and interpreter of the faith? Specifically that his role is not to introduce anything new, but to transmit faithfully what has been passed down.

If you are conceding at the outset that Amoris Laetitia is a novelty then from the perspective of orthodox Catholicism the debate is already over. There are no novel teachings in Catholicism.    

I am not conceding that. Who is to say that Familiaris is not a novelty and that Amoris is not a return to the true teaching of the apostles? I think that Arianism was widespread before the Trinity was formally defined (the point here is only that just because X predates Y in time does not mean that X is more consistent with the teaching of the apostles than Y).

The only thing that the teaching contained in Familiaris would have on its side is time (and admittedly a lot of time), but time is not a reason by itself to conclude that it is correct. For all we know the Church may be around for another 200,000 years and the time period where Familiaris held just a blip on the radar, like Arianism and other incorrect teachings.

I do not mean to say that I actually believe it is wrong, just to clarify.

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not think anyone seriously believes that. Even the most committed Kasper-ites. The closest you will ever find to that argument is among the likes of the eastern oikonomia argument, which was comprehensively addressed in that recent book Remaining In The Truth Of Christ. 

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not think anyone seriously believes that. Even the most committed Kasper-ites. The closest you will ever find to that argument is among the likes of the eastern oikonomia argument, which was comprehensively addressed in that recent book Remaining In The Truth Of Christ. 

Thanks. Will have to study that.

I find the distinction between a "development" and a "novelty" to be kind of vapid.

The Assumption of Mary comes to mind. If I were a Protestant I would say "It is a novel teaching. Scripture doesn't teach it, and you don't see it in the earliest Church fathers." That seems to be pretty much the case if you look at it objectively. 

But I am Catholic so I have call it a "development" of a teaching that was always there from the beginning. 

That always seemed kind of specious to me as a matter of pure logic, but I guess I just need to study up on these issues further when I have time.

 

[Guest]

Quote

https://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/CONSC.TXT Deep within their conscience human persons discover a law which they have not laid upon themselves but which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and avoid evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that.

If it should come to an even more serious crisis in The Church, I would follow Pope Francis with hope and prayer that The Holy Spirit will sort things out in His Time, not mine - and His Way with His Result.  "Thou art Peter, The Rock, and on this Rock I will build My Church and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it".

Quote

Peace stated: "At least from my perspective, I feel like it is just better to follow the current pope and have faith that the Holy Spirit will eventually guide him and the other bishops into the truth."

My way as well.

At least half the time, due to complexity of discussion including language used, I have little notion of what is being said, if any notion at all.   Complexity and language used is not the problem.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

dfga

Edited December 2, 2016 by <3 PopeFrancis

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Thanks. Will have to study that.

I find the distinction between a "development" and a "novelty" to be kind of vapid.

The Assumption of Mary comes to mind. If I were a Protestant I would say "It is a novel teaching. Scripture doesn't teach it, and you don't see it in the earliest Church fathers." That seems to be pretty much the case if you look at it objectively. 

But I am Catholic so I have call it a "development" of a teaching that was always there from the beginning. 

That always seemed kind of specious to me as a matter of pure logic, but I guess I just need to study up on these issues further when I have time.

 

In my personal opinion the concept of doctrinal development has been pushed much too far in the post-VII zeitgeist. I do not think doctrine develops anywhere near to the extent we have been implying. I will dig up a quote tonight after work on the topic.

[Nihil Obstat]

This quote comes from Vatican I and is similar but not identical to the one I am searching for. The search is not going splendidly though.

 

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

[Nihil Obstat]

Found it. From the Oath Against Modernism.

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

Refers to dogma of course, but the same is true of non dogmatic doctrine, as Vatican I and Pascendi teach.

[Guest]

The Gospel is the essence of simplicity thankfully.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Divine simplicity.

 

The Holy Scriptures

22. We have already touched upon the nature and origin of the Sacred Books. According to the principles of the Modernists they may be rightly described as a collection of experiences, not indeed of the kind that may come to anybody, but those extraordinary and striking ones which have happened in any religion. And this is precisely what they teach about our books of the Old and New Testament. But to suit their own theories they note with remarkable ingenuity that, although experience is something belonging to the present, still it may derive its material from the past and the future alike, inasmuch as the believer by memory lives the past over again after the manner of the present, and lives the future already by anticipation. This explains how it is that the historical and apocalyptical books are included among the Sacred Writings. God does indeed speak in these books - through the medium of the believer, but only, according to Modernistic theology, by vital immanence and permanence. Do we inquire concerning inspiration? Inspiration, they reply, is distinguished only by its vehemence from that impulse which stimulates the believer to reveal the faith that is in him by words or writing. It is something like what happens in poetical inspiration, of which it has been said: There is God in us, and when he stirreth he sets us afire. And it is precisely in this sense that God is said to be the origin of the inspiration of the Sacred Books. The Modernists affirm, too, that there is nothing in these books which is not inspired. In this respect some might be disposed to consider them as more orthodox than certain other moderns who somewhat restrict inspiration, as, for instance, in what have been put forward as tacit citations. But it is all mere juggling of words. For if we take the Bible, according to the tenets of agnosticism, to be a human work, made by men for men, but allowing the theologian to proclaim that it is divine by immanence, what room is there left in it for inspiration? General inspiration in the Modernist sense it is easy to find, but of inspiration in the Catholic sense there is not a trace.

[Peace]

You know you want to post the whole thing.

[Nihil Obstat]

25 minutes ago, Peace said:

You know you want to post the whole thing.

Of course I do. Pascendi, dude.