Jason has responded to my reply:
<< The Church receives it as canonical, evidenced by the citation. "Catholic Bible scholars" have nothing to do with anything. If evangelicals don't receive it as canonical, that's fine. But your views have nothing to do with the DI citation. Even conceding the possibility that it is not canonical, the citation itself indicates that DI is affirming what the passage communicates, regardless of its canonical status. >>
This is the statement in the DI that we’re talking about:
<< He [Christ] himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5). >>
The immediate question is not whether it’s canonical, but whether it’s true. The DI cites the long ending of Mark as a prooftext to justify its affirmation that Christ “himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism.”
This is more than affirming what the passage “indicates”—in terms of the necessity of faith and baptism. Rather, this is affirming that Christ himself, in his own person, and his own words, explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism. Their necessity may be true (or false) irrespective of a dominical assertion for that effect, or even in the absence of a dominical assertion to that effect. That’s not the issue.
The issue is whether Jesus ever said ir, as recorded in the long ending of Mark. Does this preserve the authentic ipsissima verba or at least the authentic ipsissima vox of Christ in his post-Resurrection appearance?
And the quality of our textual witness is certainly germane to the answer. Just as I don’t take my information about the life of Christ from apocryphal Gospels, I don’t take my information from a spurious postscript to the canonical Gospel of Mark.
So what is Jason really saying? That the DI can make a falsehood true? Or that the falsity of the prooftext is irrelevant to the claim--even though the claim is specifically grounded in to that prooftext (along with Jn 3:5)?
Frankly, this is a systemic problem in Catholicism. You have Roman Catholics who would never tolerate such loose views of the truth in their personal conduct or in other field of knowledge, but when it comes to theology, a very different standard, if you can even call it a standard, comes into play.
<< << Pagans who have never heard the Gospel have the moral law written on their hearts. While it is easily blinded by sin, it is there nonetheless. Christians have the moral law written on their hearts, but they also have it in the explict sources of divine revelation (Scripture and Tradition). >>
I assume that “the moral law written on their hearts” is an allusion to Rom 2:15 and Jer 31:33. If so, there are a couple of fundamental difficulties with Jason’s appeal:
1.The allusion is to the New Covenant, prophesied by Jeremiah. In context, then, both in terms of the original viewpoint as well as its NT fulfillment, it has reference, not to pagans, but to members of the New Covenant community.
This is inclusive of gentiles, but Christian gentiles rather than pagan gentiles. For the supporting arguments, see Feinberg, Harrison, and Thompson on Jeremiah, as well as Augustine, Cranfield, and Wright on Romans.
2.But assuming, for the sake of argument, that the reference is to the heathen, how does the law function in Romans? Can a man be saved by law-keeping? According to Paul, the role of the law is to mediate the knowledge of sin (3:20; 5:20; 7:7), not the knowledge of salvation. It supplies the standard of judgment (2:12-16), not of salvation.
<< "To whom much is given, much is expected." >>
I don’t deny that.
<< I did not respond to your wider questions on Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus, as my post was in response to one specific assertion you made, which was factually erroneous. The Church specifically denies what you proposed. >>
1.Even if the RCC specifically denies what I have proposed, that doesn’t solve the problem, for the issue is not merely what the RCC affirms or denies, but what it implies. Is the magisterium consistent in its teaching?
2.How was my specific assertion factually erroneous? This is the assertion you were responding to:
<< "It’s safer to be outside the church. The less you know the better. Ignorance is your best defense. By contrast, the most dangerous place in the world, spiritually speaking, is inside the Catholic church!">>
This assertion is generated by the interrelation between three different propositions:
I) Pagans can be in a state of invincible ignorance. This constitutes an exculpatory circumstance by rendering their unbelief in Catholic dogma inculpable.
ii) Pagans can be saved apart from faith in Catholic dogma or formal membership in the visible church.
iii) Catholics, due to their explicit knowledge of dogma and direct access to the means of grace, are liable to greater judgment. Their privileged situation is an aggravating circumstance should they resist the means of grace: “If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged.”
iv) Ergo, a pagan can be a beneficiary of saving grace without incurring the added liability to which a Catholic is uniquely vulnerable and chargeable.
I’d add that a practical level, there is a high percentage of men and women who were baptized and brought up in the Catholic faith, but have since turned their back on the church and are now living in a state of mortal sin. So the risk is far from purely hypothetical.
Finally, since Steve Jackson has drawn our attention to a review of the DI, we might as well quote a few choice selections from that review (see below) inasmuch as it offers an independent commentary which happens to coincide with elements of my own interpretation
***QUOTE***
While DJ rightly rejects the hypothesis of a universal economy of salvation of the Holy Spirit, it puts forward the view that the Holy Spirit is sent forth upon all of mankind. The Scripture adduced in no way justifies that the Holy Spirit has been sent upon mankind since the beginning of history. The farewell discourse of Jesus in the Gospel of John shows that Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit only to His disciples and the Church. He did not send the Holy Spirit to the world or to mankind as a whole, which, insofar as it does not believe, could not and cannot receive this Holy Spirit. As a result of the intimate bond between the mystery of Christ and the mystery of the Holy Spirit, DJ deduces a twofold salvific operation of Christ with and through the Holy Spirit in the Father's plan of salvation (DJ§12): 1) The entire work of building the Church through its Head, Jesus Christ, in fellowship with the Holy Spirit down the centuries; 2)The salvific work of Jesus Christ with and through the Holy Spirit beyond the visible borders of the Church.
Thus, according to DJ, the Catholic Church's relation to non-Catholics is analogous to her relation to non-Christians: the Catholic Church's absolute claim is not to be understood as being exclusive and separating, but inclusive and uniting. There is a, full and a less full communion with the one Church of Christ. There is the fullness of truth and grace in the Catholic Church and an imperfect participation in it in the non-Catholic communities.
<< [t]his truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism....If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. >>
That is why the Church is bound to proclaim Christ, in whom "men find the fullness of their religious life." So it is not a question of salvation versus perdition, but only of salvation versus the fullness of salvation. This chimerical alternative is erroneous in itself and a source of heresy.
According to DJ, other religions are genuine mediations of salvation. They point to Christ and lead to Him. This estimate of the non-Christian religions cannot be supported by Scripture nor tradition. The weakness in DJ is that the position of the partner-in-dialogue is not articulated according to the partner's self-understanding, but determined on the basis of the contemporary Church's position. The alleged salvific elements in other religions are not specified but merely declared to be "seeds of the Word" in some vague sense.
The view of the other religions in DJ is not true to historical reality. In reality these other religions are totalities, each possessing its own core of life and organization, on which all assertions are to be understood and interpreted. They are not oriented to Christ, but to their own cores. In all of DJ there is no presentation of a single non-Christian religion in its specific, historical form. Compare historical religions like Buddhism or Islam with the Catholic Faith and it is immediately clear that, seen as totalities, they contradict Catholicism and are not oriented to Christ through their supposed "semina Verbi."
DJ’s inter-religious dialogue is in reality a monologue. The dialogue-partner himself does not speak. DJ itself, in an entirely abstract way, pronounces its verdict on the quality of salvation offered by the non-Christian religions, and on the way they "anonymously" lead to Christ.
It is completely baffling that DJ, in its evaluation of the other religions, ignores mankind's original sin and inclination to sin, which, after all, are the very preconditions of redemption. Therefore, it is not in line with Scripture nor St. Paul, who, in both his speech at the Areopagus and Epistle to the Romans (Rom. l:l-9ff.), showed his negative estimate of the pagan religions around him.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_July/Dominus_Jesus.htm
***END-QUOTE***
Thanks for the response.
ReplyDeleteSo what is Jason really saying? That the DI can make a falsehood true? Or that the falsity of the prooftext is irrelevant to the claim--even though the claim is specifically grounded in to that prooftext (along with Jn 3:5)?
I'm saying that this has nothing to do with my original objection, which was very simple.
I did not object to your opinions on Catholic theology. I objected to your misrepresentation of how the Catholic Church understands its own teaching:
It’s safer to be outside the church. The less you know the better. Ignorance is your best defense. By contrast, the most dangerous place in the world, spiritually speaking, is inside the Catholic church!
In "Dominus Iesus", the Church specifically rejects this proposition:
"If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation." (DI, #22)
This is a formal document, directly approved by Pope John Paul II.
I understand you oppose Catholic doctrine on ecclesiology, soteriology, and all related aspects. I was not initiating a debate on these matters.
I simply ask, for the sake of truth and respect, that you accurately present how the Catholic magisterium understands itself, and respond in kind.
God bless.
Sorry, Jason, but there are several things amiss in your reply:
ReplyDeletei) As to my opinions on Catholic theology, my opposition to the same, and whether this bias leads me to misrepresent Catholicism, that sort of objection is reversible: I could just as well suggest that because Jason Cardona is an observant Catholic who hopes to formally study Catholic theology some day, he has no incentive to ask the hard questions which would expose deep inconsistencies in magisterial teaching, and, instead, always puts the best face on everything while skating over all the problematic parts.
ii) I'm playing by your rules, not mine, quoting your authorities, not mine. I am discussing Catholicism from within, not without.
iii) Yes, it is important to consider the self-understanding of a faith-community. To suggest, however, that its self-understanding is normative in the sense that it disallows the possibility of uncovering inconsistencies in its belief-system, and exposing ad hoc efforts to harmonize and rationalize such inconsistencies, would debar one from ever disproving a rival belief-system, such as Mormonism or Scientology or astrology. Indeed, it would disqualify the RCC from offering a value-judgment on the Orthodox, or Lutherans, or Anglicans, or Calvinists, or fundamentalists, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or Muslims, or atheists, &c. You are immunizing your own religious tradition at the expense of immunizing every other religious tradition.
iv) Self-understanding should be accompanied by a complementary capacity for self-criticism.
v) You continue to quote from half of one paragraph of DI. What I did was to compare and contrast several lines of thought in DI. Which of us is engaging in a more serious analysis of the document?
vi) You reiterate your claim that DI specifically rejects my interpretation. Once again, this either misses the point or dodges the point. The question is not merely, what does DI say in one place, but what does it say in several different places, and are these various lines of thought truly coherent?
To suggest, however, that its self-understanding is normative in the sense that it disallows the possibility of uncovering inconsistencies in its belief-system, and exposing ad hoc efforts to harmonize and rationalize such inconsistencies
ReplyDeleteNot at all. You are completely free to argue that Catholicism is wrong, inconsistent, whatever.
However, the assertion in dispute was a summation of how the Catholic Church understands its own teaching. That is, your claim was that the Catholic Church now understands its teaching thus:
"It’s safer to be outside the church. The less you know the better. Ignorance is your best defense. By contrast, the most dangerous place in the world, spiritually speaking, is inside the Catholic church!"
This was your characterization of how the Catholic Church now understands its own teaching (as opposed to how it used to understand it.
My only point is that this is not how the Catholic Church now understands its own teaching. This is how the Catholic Church understands its own teaching:
"If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation." (DI #22)
If you had simply cited Dominus Iesus, paragraph 22, and indicated it is how the Catholic Church understands its own teaching, and then proceeded to criticize this understand, on whatever grounds, I wouldn't have had a problem. But you misrepresented her understanding.
You continue to quote from half of one paragraph of DI. What I did was to compare and contrast several lines of thought in DI. Which of us is engaging in a more serious analysis of the document?
Again, the consistency or veracity of Dominus Iesus is not relevant. The only relevant point is how the Church understands its teaching. Everything in Dominus Iesus must be understood as the Church intends it. Only then can you criticize the Church's understanding. How does the Church understand its teaching in Dominus Iesus?:
"If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation." (DI #22)
The question is not merely, what does DI say in one place
No, the question is how does the Church understand its own teaching. Does she understand it as you say she does:
"It’s safer to be outside the church. The less you know the better. Ignorance is your best defense. By contrast, the most dangerous place in the world, spiritually speaking, is inside the Catholic church!"
Or does she understand it as she says she does?:
"If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation." (DI #22)
So long as you are clear to your readers how the Church understands her own teaching, I have no problem. Criticize and expose it all you want. Just present it accurately.
God bless.
Jason said:
ReplyDelete<< My only point is that this is not how the Catholic Church now understands its own teaching. >>
So only the church's very latest self-understanding matters? The revised edition, hot of the press? The church's past self-understanding has been abrogated? Is that how you construe the development of doctrine? Later developments negate early developments?
What about Vatican II? That was 40 years ago. Is that now old hat? What about last year? Does that still apply, or do we need to trade it in for this year's model?
<< Again, the consistency or veracity of Dominus Iesus is not relevant. >>
What a beautiful statement! Truth doesn't matter!
i) You know, Jason, when I'm on my deathbed, staring into eternity, it will certainly matter to me whether, as the first two commandments have it, I was worshipping the true God in spirit and in truth--and not worshipping a false god, or worshipping the true God falsely. And I hope that when your time comes, you will see how much it matters for your belief about the world to square with the way the world really is, and to make a commensurate effort to have faith and fact coincide.
ii) You seem to have a habit, which is really an apologetic ploy, of artificially limiting the discussion to the opening moves, as though the end-game is unimportant, when then end-game is all-important.
<< The only relevant point is how the Church understands its teaching. Everything in Dominus Iesus must be understood as the Church intends it. Only then can you criticize the Church's understanding. >>
In other words, your church's (current) self-interpretation is the given. All criticism must take that for granted. A critic may disagree with your church, but he can never question her self-interpretation.
Jason, this is the classic mentality of the cult-member. It ignores the fact that religious institutions and religious bodies may redefine themselves and concoct face-saving distinctions to shield their claims from falsification.
When the Watch Tower makes a false prediction, it simply reinterprets the terms of fulfillment. And devoted Jehovah's Witnesses swallow that whole.
You end up with a church that has no standards, for whenever it gets into a tight spot, it simply changes the standards to keep up appearances.
Even Scripture has criteria for its own verification or falsification. These are scriptural criteria, not extrascriptural criteria, but they are fixed criteria--of a counterfactual character. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then the Gospel is false (1 Cor 15:14). If the God of Israel can't foresee the future, then he is a false god--an idol of the mind (Isa 40-48).
You, however, have this sliding scale where, to be sure, your church can never be falsified, but at a fatal cost--for it can never be verified.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteAs I indicated above, you are free to criticize the Church on whatever grounds. If you feel she has contradicted herself, fine.
The point of your original post, however, was that this is how the Church understands her teaching today:
"It’s safer to be outside the church. The less you know the better. Ignorance is your best defense. By contrast, the most dangerous place in the world, spiritually speaking, is inside the Catholic church!"
This is demonstrably false. The Church does not today understand her own teaching in this way. Just the opposite:
"If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation." (DI #22)
If you want to argue this is a contradiction of Vatican II, Vatican I, Nicea, whatever. All I'm asking is that you represent accurately how the Church understands its own teaching. Don't claim she has a new understanding today when she specifically denies this proposed understanding.
You seem to have a habit, which is really an apologetic ploy, of artificially limiting the discussion to the opening moves, as though the end-game is unimportant, when then end-game is all-important.
Steve, I had only one point since the beginning of this. It was not on your opinions about Catholic ecclesiology, or Catholic eschatology, or Catholic soteriology. It was simply your factual misrepresentation of the Catholic Church's understanding of its own teaching today.
You've continually brought up issues that have nothing to do with my point. And all the topics you raised are fine. I am not dodging them. I never intended to discuss them in the first place. I'm more than capable of addressing all the points you've raised. I've chosen not to, because I prefer to stick to my point.
I think this discussion has run its course.
God bless, and thanks for taking time to address my comments.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJason said:
ReplyDelete<< All I'm asking is that you represent accurately how the Church understands its own teaching. Don't claim she has a new understanding today when she specifically denies this proposed understanding. >>
Jason,
It is quite possible to do two things at once:
i) Accurately present your church's self-understanding, AND;
ii) Point out that this self-understanding does, indeed, represent a new undestanding.
I'm perfectly entitled to lodge that claim as long as I can demonstrate it.
Obviously the magisterium is not going to openly and consciously contradict itself.
This doesn't mean that it can't indulge in a self-serving self-understanding which papers over the past.
My post never said or implied that the magisterium sees itself as holding that it's safer to be outside the church instead of inside the church.
Rather, the point of my post is that this is an implication of magisterial teaching, if you put several things together.
That doesn't follow from your atomistic reading of the document, but an atomistic reading is less accurate than a holistic reading. It is no misrepresentation on my part to take your theological tradition seriously enough to explore the logical convergence of various strands of magisterial teaching.