Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Q: Which was the deepest point before Mariana Trench was discovered?

Ans: Mariana Trench. 

And what if someone discovers a deeper trench tomorrow?

2 hours ago, Jack4 said:

At least as far as Honorius and his monothelitism are concerned, Scripture seems expressly clear (Lk 22:44) to me.

ETA 22:42

If only the Church had you around at the time of Nicaea to swoop in and educate us. The whole thing could have been easily avoided.

[Jack4]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

And what if someone discovers a deeper trench tomorrow?

I'm assuming there is nothing as such; i was trying to illustrate a point. 

If no one hears a tree fall, did it still fall?

 

Quote

If only the Church had you around at the time of Nicaea to swoop in and educate us. The whole thing could have been easily avoided.

St Maximus would probably have done that.

[Peace]

48 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I was trying to illustrate a point. 

Likewise.

[Amppax]

@Peace @Ice_nine I had mentioned at some point (either in connection with this thread or an earlier, related thread) something about readings on the current state of moral theology. I realized recently that I have yet to provide the promised readings. I'm afraid I'm not exactly doing that here, but there is an article appropriate to this discussion which also touches on the state of moral theology as a whole. 

The article is by Fr. Edmund Waldstein O. Cist., and it discusses the dubia in light of certain trends in moral theology. Fr. Waldstein is, in my opinion, an excellent theologian, and I think you'll find his analysis helpful for your understanding, even if you do not agree. Anyway, here is the article: https://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/dubia-and-initiating-processes/.

[Amppax]

On 12/17/2016 at 2:52 PM, Peace said:

Sure. Pope Francis can be wrong. So can the statement in Familiaris that we have been discussing. . .

It seems that the only solution for that is Matt. 16:19. Any pope can teach error but no pope can define error to which others are bound. For non-infalliable things people are still allowed to respectfully disagree and try to persuade the Pope to change his teaching or rules. Many things can be interesting to discuss, but at the end of the day I guess I just prefer to defer to the chain of command when it comes to the ultimate conclusion. They have Holy Orders so I guess I see it as their job to teach and my job to fall in line when it comes down to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've been reading a lot of Ross Douthat recently and came across and older article which immediately reminded me of this post. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/a-church-not-a-party/. Douthat's point, one with which I agree, is that Church teaching is not arbitrary, based on the whims of the ruling pontiff. Douthat says: 

Quote

(I)n traditional Catholic belief, church authority is to be generally accepted over merely “personal” ideas. The issue is that Catholics are traditionally supposed to believe other things as well: In particular, that the authority of the church is not just arbitrary, not a party line that we’re supposed to adapt ourselves to à la Communists in the later 1930s, but an authority that is vindicated in its own fidelity to the New Testament, the early church, the creeds and the entire deposit of faith. Absent clear evidence of such fidelity, the argument from authority risks becoming just that and nothing more: A kind of free-floating ultramontanism, unmoored from the official reasons for its claims. Popes and councils and synods, in other words, are not really the Catholic equivalent of America’s three branches of government: A governmental structure conducting a kind of theological-political process whose results competing factions are obliged to accept for the sake of civil peace. The results themselves are part of what’s supposed to vindicate the process, and it’s entirely reasonable to raise some questions, even an alarm, if they seem to be headed in a self-contradictory or radically-discontinuous direction.

 

1

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by Amppax

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Amppax said:

@Peace @Ice_nine I had mentioned at some point (either in connection with this thread or an earlier, related thread) something about readings on the current state of moral theology. I realized recently that I have yet to provide the promised readings. I'm afraid I'm not exactly doing that here, but there is an article appropriate to this discussion which also touches on the state of moral theology as a whole. 

The article is by Fr. Edmund Waldstein O. Cist., and it discusses the dubia in light of certain trends in moral theology. Fr. Waldstein is, in my opinion, an excellent theologian, and I think you'll find his analysis helpful for your understanding, even if you do not agree. Anyway, here is the article: https://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/dubia-and-initiating-processes/.

Thanks. I will try to check it out when I have a second.

3 hours ago, Amppax said:

I've been reading a lot of Ross Douthat recently and came across and older article which immediately reminded me of this post. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/a-church-not-a-party/. Douthat's point, one with which I agree, is that Church teaching is not arbitrary, based on the whims of the ruling pontiff.

Ross Douthat seems like a good guy but sometimes he strikes me as going beyond his realm of competence. I am guilty of that too, of course, but I am not writing for a major newspaper.

I don't think anybody asserts that Church teaching is arbitrary and based on the whims of the living pope. Maybe there are people out there who are suggesting that, but I haven't seen it personally.

Certainly there is a bit of a balancing act that any Catholic must engage in. I am not saying "Do whatever the pope says".  If I run into Pope Francis on the street and he says "Peace. What up my man. You see that infant over there? Kill him." I would respond by saying "Sorry Pope I am pretty certain that would violate the 5th commandment."

But that is quite different than the following conversation:

Pope Francis:  "Peace. What up my man. I have decided that in certain exceptional circumstances people who are divorced and remarried will be allowed to participate in communion without living as brother and sister."

Peace: "Word up? Well, although there is no scripture verse or infallible statement that clearly speaks to that issue, and there are reasonable arguments and faithful people on both sides of the issue, based on my own private study and reasoning I have personally decided that allowing them to participate in communion would be contrary to the divine law and Sacred Tradition. Therefore, you are a heretic. Get your stuff together my man."

What I am saying is that in situations that are more grey than black and white, I would give a strong amount of deference to the living magisterium. Beyond the fact that they have Holy Orders and that their office is to teach and so forth, practically speaking, every single one of those guys is much more educated and otherwise qualified than myself to determine what the teaching of the Church is concerning complicated issues like that. Who am I to say that they are wrong and I am correct?

Anyway you want to approach this current situation you are still left with the question - who gets to interpret Sacred Scripture and Tradition?  In what situations does the Pope and the other bishops get to decide, and in what situations does Peace, Nihil and Amppax get to decide?  I suppose that in certain situations I would decide for myself (such as in the "kill the infant" conversation above).  But where things are more grey, I do not see any justification for you, me or Nihil to refuse to defer to the living authority.  Exactly what would your reason be?

I am 100% confident that killing infants is wrong so in that case I would follow my conscience in refusing to follow the pope. If someone is 100% confident that Pope Francis would be wrong if he decides to allow the divorced and remarried to participate in communion, then I suppose he should likewise refuse to follow the Pope on that issue. I guess that I cannot fault people for doing that if they are truly that confident that they are right and the pope would be wrong. In this particular case I would wonder if that confidence is justified given that even people such as Pope Benedict himself were in the "allow them to participate in communion" camp in the past. I have asked for the evidence (such as clear statements by Church Fathers that the practice cannot be changed) that would justify such a confidence, but it has not exactly been forthcoming in this thread. If it honestly was so clear that it would be prohibited by the divine law would we be having this conversation in the first place?

It seems to me that if as general principle we do not give them a strong degree of deference concerning issues that are not black and white, we may as well all just become protestant. What would be the point of having them? So that we can follow them only when they agree with our interpretation? Quite honestly some of the resistance and questioning of the living authority does strike me as a rather protestant mindset (having been one myself for most of my life).

Peace

Edited December 21, 2016 by Peace

[Jack4]

22 hours ago, Peace said:

Certainly there is a bit of a balancing act that any Catholic must engage in. I am not saying "Do whatever the pope says".  If I run into Pope Francis on the street and he says "Peace. What up my man. You see that infant over there? Kill him." I would respond by saying "Sorry Pope I am pretty certain that would violate the 5th commandment."

But that is quite different than the following conversation:

Pope Francis:  "Peace. What up my man. Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let us remember that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties”. The practical pastoral care ..... In certain cases, this can include the help of Sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’. I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.'

Peace: "Word up? Well, I don't understand you, please clarify. Can the expression “in certain cases” ... be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?"

Pope Francis: You black-and-white rigid legalist promethean neopelagian gnostic Pharisee!

FTFY

Edited December 22, 2016 by Jack4

[Amppax]

On 12/21/2016 at 1:22 PM, Peace said:

Ross Douthat seems like a good guy but sometimes he strikes me as going beyond his realm of competence. I am guilty of that too, of course, but I am not writing for a major newspaper.

 

I think his ideas are worth engaging, regardless of what subject his degree is in. Plus, reporting on religion and religious issues is his competency, it's what he does in large part. GK Chesterton was an essayist and journalist, should we ignore what he has to say about theology as well? Not saying that Douthat is a Chesterton, but your dismissal applies equally to Chesterton, who could one day be canonized largely based on his writings about faith. 

Quote

I don't think anybody asserts that Church teaching is arbitrary and based on the whims of the living pope. Maybe there are people out there who are suggesting that, but I haven't seen it personally.

Certainly there is a bit of a balancing act that any Catholic must engage in. I am not saying "Do whatever the pope says". 

1

People would deny that they believe Church teaching is arbitrary, however, as I think Douthat illustrates in the full article, that denial is empty. In this case, JPII taught x, it seems (though it is not clear) that Francis teaches or at least favors the opposite, -x. 

Quote

If I run into Pope Francis on the street and he says "Peace. What up my man. You see that infant over there? Kill him." I would respond by saying "Sorry Pope I am pretty certain that would violate the 5th commandment."

But that is quite different than the following conversation:

Pope Francis:  "Peace. What up my man. I have decided that in certain exceptional circumstances people who are divorced and remarried will be allowed to participate in communion without living as brother and sister."

Peace: "Word up? Well, although there is no scripture verse or infallible statement that clearly speaks to that issue, and there are reasonable arguments and faithful people on both sides of the issue, based on my own private study and reasoning I have personally decided that allowing them to participate in communion would be contrary to the divine law and Sacred Tradition. Therefore, you are a heretic. Get your stuff together my man."

1

See Douthat's example in the above essay, if you haven't already. 

Quote

What I am saying is that in situations that are more grey than black and white, I would give a strong amount of deference to the living magisterium. Beyond the fact that they have Holy Orders and that their office is to teach and so forth, practically speaking, every single one of those guys is much more educated and otherwise qualified than myself to determine what the teaching of the Church is concerning complicated issues like that. Who am I to say that they are wrong and I am correct?

Anyway you want to approach this current situation you are still left with the question - who gets to interpret Sacred Scripture and Tradition?  In what situations does the Pope and the other bishops get to decide, and in what situations does Peace, Nihil and Amppax get to decide?  I suppose that in certain situations I would decide for myself (such as in the "kill the infant" conversation above).  But where things are more grey, I do not see any justification for you, me or Nihil to refuse to defer to the living authority.  Exactly what would your reason be?

7

My reason? Well, theology isn't just a hobby for me, it's my profession and the area in which I was educated. I'm fairly well read in moral theology, and my objections aren't my own, they are those of prominent theologians, philosophers, bishops, and cardinals. I think that last is the most important, that these concerns aren't my own. 

My formatting has been weird for this, so forgive me if i didn't get to everything you said. 

 

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Amppax said:

I think his ideas are worth engaging, regardless of what subject his degree is in. Plus, reporting on religion and religious issues is his competency, it's what he does in large part. GK Chesterton was an essayist and journalist, should we ignore what he has to say about theology as well? Not saying that Douthat is a Chesterton, but your dismissal applies equally to Chesterton, who could one day be canonized largely based on his writings about faith. 

That is fair enough. Engage away if you like his writing. I have referenced his stuff on this site before. It's not like I hate him.

Sometimes I think he does go a bit too far in terms of suggesting that his own particular interpretations of things are "Black Letter Catholicism" if you will.

2 hours ago, Amppax said:

People would deny that they believe Church teaching is arbitrary, however, as I think Douthat illustrates in the full article, that denial is empty. In this case, JPII taught x, it seems (though it is not clear) that Francis teaches or at least favors the opposite, -x. 

 You are really going to force me to read the article aren't you? I will try to get around to that "one day."

Would the disagreement of two popes on an issue be evidence of arbitrariness, in your opinion?  I am not sure why that would follow.

2 hours ago, Amppax said:

See Douthat's example in the above essay, if you haven't already. 

My reason? Well, theology isn't just a hobby for me, it's my profession and the area in which I was educated. I'm fairly well read in moral theology, and my objections aren't my own, they are those of prominent theologians, philosophers, bishops, and cardinals. I think that last is the most important, that these concerns aren't my own.

My question was a bit different I think. Let's say you consider an issue and you realize there are good arguments on both sides. But you conclude with say 51% confidence that the pope's position is wrong, and 49% confidence that the pope's position is correct.

In this situation, why would you not give him the benefit of the doubt?

5 hours ago, Jack4 said:

FTFY

Do you serve any purpose on the Earth other than to annoy me?

My conversation was not intended to represent or symbolize the conversation between Pope Francis and the cardinals who authored the dubia.

Go away.

[Amppax]

26 minutes ago, Peace said:

That is fair enough. Engage away if you like his writing. I have referenced his stuff on this site before. It's not like I hate him.

Sometimes I think he does go a bit too far in terms of suggesting that his own particular interpretations of things are "Black Letter Catholicism" if you will.

 You are really going to force me to read the article aren't you? I will try to get around to that "one day."

 

1

I'm not saying it's like you hate him, it just seemed to me you dismissed the point rather quickly. I do like his writing, and I've particularly appreciated what he's had to say about this situation: I think it parallels my own thinking but saves me from having to write 1500 word essays. Of course, you don't have to read it, I was just particularly struck reading that specific article after reading your post which I posted it in response to. 

Quote

Would the disagreement of two popes on an issue be evidence of arbitrariness, in your opinion?  I am not sure why that would follow.

 

 

Would a disagreement be evidence of arbitrariness? No. Would disagreement on a key doctrine of the Church be evidence of arbitrariness? Yes, I think it would. 

Quote

My question was a bit different I think. Let's say you consider an issue and you realize there are good arguments on both sides. But you conclude with say 51% confidence that the pope's position is wrong, and 49% confidence that the pope's position is correct.

In this situation, why would you not give him the benefit of the doubt?

 

 

If I thought there were good arguments on both sides, yes I would. I have yet to read anything on this that deals with the specific issues raised by the dubia or the other critiques. Fr. Spadaro and Card. Kaspar, etc. have simply accused their interlocutors of rigidity. Pope Francis has insinuated critique without proposing a solution to the questions. None of these responses deal with the theological meat of the objections. If someone presented me with a good argument in response, yes I would give the benefit of the doubt, and indeed, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt currently in the sense that I'm holding out hope that he'll answer the dubia in such a way that affirms his orthodoxy. There is one argument (Rocco Buttiglione's) which I've been meaning to read, it's even on the top of my reading list, but I've also seen pretty convincing rebuttals to that. So I'm not holding out hope that it convinces me, but I am open to being convinced.

It seems, however, that best (and most likely case) is that he never answers the dubia, and we're stuck where we are now. Which isn't a great place, but it's not schism. 

I think a lot of this depends on exactly what that "formal act of correction" from Burke et. al. ends up looking like. 

Believe me, Peace, I want nothing more than to be able to say with full confidence that Pope Francis is entirely in the right. Towards the beginning of his pontificate, basically, until this past spring, I've been vigorously defending him from some of my more traditional friends. However, the current confusion is worrisome. 

Just to be clear, I don't think Pope Francis has fallen into formal heresy. I don't think he's an anti-pope. I just think that he needs to clear up the current doctrinal confusion which he's created, and I pray that he does soon. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Amppax

[Jack4]

15 hours ago, Peace said:

Do you serve any purpose on the Earth other than to annoy me?

My conversation was not intended to represent or symbolize the conversation between Pope Francis and the cardinals who authored the dubia.

Go away.

Sorry. 

 

My mother tongue is Malayalam and I know a smattering of Hindi. As you can guess from that (,and as you can feel when you read this), English is not my first language. (Feel free to ask me if you don't understand me, and feel free to correct my English mistakes).  

I shall treat you with respect and charity and I expect the same in return. I belong to a different culture and I think and translate my posts. So, you might get the tone that I am rude. Actually, I strive to love you as much as God does (Misericordes sicut Pater). Thanks for understanding. 

About me

[Jack4]

Pope Francis' address To the Roman Curia on the occasion of the presentation of Christmas greetings (22 December 2016) might have some references. He does not refer explicitly to the dubia Cardinals.  The following are his comments on resistance to Church reform. 

In this process, it is normal, and indeed healthy, to encounter difficulties, which in the case of the reform, might present themselves as different types of resistance. There can be cases of open resistance, often born of goodwill and sincere dialogue, and cases of hidden resistance, born of fearful or hardened hearts content with the empty rhetoric of “spiritual window-dressing” typical of those who say they are ready for change, yet want everything to remain as it was before. There are also cases of malicious resistance, which spring up in misguided minds and come to the fore when the devil inspires ill intentions (often cloaked in sheep’s clothing). This last kind of resistance hides behind words of self-justification and, often, accusation; it takes refuge in traditions, appearances, formalities, in the familiar, or else in a desire to make everything personal, failing to distinguish between the act, the actor, and the action.

The absence of reaction is a sign of death! Consequently, the good cases of resistance – and even those not quite so good – are necessary and merit being listened to, welcomed and their expression encouraged. It is a sign that the body is alive.

All this is to say that the reform of the Curia is a delicate process that has to take place in fidelity to essentials, with constant discernment, evangelical courage and ecclesial wisdom, careful listening, persevering action, positive silence and firm decisions. It requires much prayer, profound humility, farsightedness, concrete steps forward and – whenever necessary – even with steps backward, with determination, vitality, the responsible exercise of power, unconditional obedience, but above all by abandonment to the sure guidance of the Holy Spirit and trust in his necessary support. Hence, prayer, prayer, prayer…

 

And then towards the end, he says the following. I think that the +Brandmuller he refers to is the same one who send the dubia. 

Two years ago, when I spoke of illnesses, one of you came up and asked me: “Where do I have to go… to the pharmacy or to confession?”. “Well… both!”, I replied. And when I greeted Cardinal Brandmüller, he looked me in the eye and said: “Acquaviva!” At the time, I didn’t understand, but, later, thinking about it, I recalled that Acquaviva, the fifth Father General of the Society of Jesus, had written a book that we students read in Latin. The spiritual directors made us read it and it was entitled: Industriae pro Superioribus ejusdem Societatis ad curandos animae morbos, that is, on curing illnesses of the soul. Three months ago, a very good edition came out in Italian, done by the late Father Giuliano Raffo, with a good introduction. It is not a critical edition, but it is a very fine translation, very well done, and I believe it could be helpful. As a Christmas gift, I would like to give it to each of you. Thank you. [Blessing].

[Nihil Obstat]

@Peace, I believe this is a source you had wanted to see.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XKimKuzgHgbE9YsJXojwhiufsDosCURraly6mMXIxDE/edit

[Peace]

On 12/31/2016 at 5:48 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

@Peace, I believe this is a source you had wanted to see.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XKimKuzgHgbE9YsJXojwhiufsDosCURraly6mMXIxDE/edit

Thank you. Much appreciated.

[Norseman82]

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 0:22 PM, Peace said:

Certainly there is a bit of a balancing act that any Catholic must engage in. I am not saying "Do whatever the pope says".  If I run into Pope Francis on the street and he says "Peace. What up my man. You see that infant over there? Kill him." I would respond by saying "Sorry Pope I am pretty certain that would violate the 5th commandment."

But that is quite different than the following conversation:

Pope Francis:  "Peace. What up my man. I have decided that in certain exceptional circumstances people who are divorced and remarried will be allowed to participate in communion without living as brother and sister."

 

And the encyclical would be entitled Quid super, homine meo?  Does anyone know how to say Wow, man in Latin so that we could give the response an appropriate title?