tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post111722573845938589..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Invincible ignoranceRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1117296978348597992005-05-28T12:16:00.000-04:002005-05-28T12:16:00.000-04:00Jason said:>Jason, It is quite possible to do two ...Jason said:<BR/><< 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. >><BR/><BR/>Jason, <BR/>It is quite possible to do two things at once:<BR/>i) Accurately present your church's self-understanding, AND;<BR/>ii) Point out that this self-understanding does, indeed, represent a new undestanding.<BR/><BR/>I'm perfectly entitled to lodge that claim as long as I can demonstrate it.<BR/><BR/>Obviously the magisterium is not going to openly and consciously contradict itself. <BR/><BR/>This doesn't mean that it can't indulge in a self-serving self-understanding which papers over the past.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Rather, the point of my post is that this is an implication of magisterial teaching, if you put several things together. <BR/><BR/>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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1117292630204287212005-05-28T11:03:00.000-04:002005-05-28T11:03:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.c.t.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02287685119108815245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1117288503616619262005-05-28T09:55:00.000-04:002005-05-28T09:55:00.000-04:00Steve,As I indicated above, you are free to critic...Steve,<BR/><BR/>As I indicated above, you are free to criticize the Church on whatever grounds. If you feel she has contradicted herself, fine.<BR/><BR/>The point of your original post, however, was that this is how the Church understands her teaching <I>today</I>:<BR/><BR/><I>"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!"</I><BR/><BR/>This is demonstrably false. The Church <I>does not</I> today understand her own teaching in this way. Just the opposite:<BR/><BR/><I>"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)</I><BR/><BR/>If you want to argue this is a contradiction of Vatican II, Vatican I, Nicea, whatever. All I'm asking is that you <I>represent accurately</I> how the Church understands its own teaching. Don't claim she has a <I>new understanding</I> today when she specifically denies this proposed understanding.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>Steve, I had only <I>one point</I> 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 <I>today</I>.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I think this discussion has run its course.<BR/><BR/>God bless, and thanks for taking time to address my comments.Jason C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00956705282956682956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1117285851889744182005-05-28T09:10:00.000-04:002005-05-28T09:10:00.000-04:00Jason said:>So only the church's very latest self-...Jason said:<BR/><< My only point is that this is not how the Catholic Church now understands its own teaching. >><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><< Again, the consistency or veracity of Dominus Iesus is not relevant. >><BR/><BR/>What a beautiful statement! Truth doesn't matter! <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><< 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. >><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>When the Watch Tower makes a false prediction, it simply reinterprets the terms of fulfillment. And devoted Jehovah's Witnesses swallow that whole.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1117240485651218582005-05-27T20:34:00.000-04:002005-05-27T20:34:00.000-04:00To suggest, however, that its self-understanding i...<I>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</I><BR/><BR/>Not at all. You are completely free to argue that Catholicism is wrong, inconsistent, whatever. <BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/><I>"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!"</I><BR/><BR/>This was your characterization of how the Catholic Church now understands its own teaching (as opposed to how it <I>used to</I> understand it.<BR/><BR/>My only point is that this <I>is not</I> how the Catholic Church now understands its own teaching. <I>This</I> is how the Catholic Church understands its own teaching:<BR/><BR/><I>"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."</I> (DI #22)<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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?:<BR/><BR/><I>"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."</I> (DI #22)<BR/><BR/><I>The question is not merely, what does DI say in one place</I><BR/><BR/>No, the question is how does the Church understand its own teaching. Does she understand it as you say she does:<BR/><BR/><I>"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!"</I><BR/><BR/>Or does she understand it as <I>she</I> says she does?:<BR/><BR/><I>"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."</I> (DI #22)<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>God bless.Jason C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00956705282956682956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1117235445552597192005-05-27T19:10:00.000-04:002005-05-27T19:10:00.000-04:00Sorry, Jason, but there are several things amiss i...Sorry, Jason, but there are several things amiss in your reply:<BR/>i) 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.<BR/>ii) I'm playing by your rules, not mine, quoting your authorities, not mine. I am discussing Catholicism from within, not without.<BR/>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.<BR/>iv) Self-understanding should be accompanied by a complementary capacity for self-criticism.<BR/>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? <BR/>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?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1117228030597232992005-05-27T17:07:00.000-04:002005-05-27T17:07:00.000-04:00Thanks for the response.So what is Jason really sa...Thanks for the response.<BR/><BR/><I>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)?</I><BR/><BR/>I'm saying that this has nothing to do with my original objection, which was very simple.<BR/><BR/>I did not object to your opinions on Catholic theology. I objected to your misrepresentation of how the Catholic Church understands its own teaching:<BR/><BR/><I>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!</I><BR/><BR/>In "Dominus Iesus", the Church specifically rejects this proposition:<BR/><BR/><I>"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)</I><BR/><BR/>This is a formal document, directly approved by Pope John Paul II.<BR/><BR/>I understand you oppose Catholic doctrine on ecclesiology, soteriology, and all related aspects. I was not initiating a debate on these matters.<BR/><BR/>I simply ask, for the sake of truth and respect, that you accurately present how the Catholic magisterium understands itself, and respond in kind.<BR/><BR/>God bless.Jason C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00956705282956682956noreply@blogger.com