tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2996244076198995678..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Magisterial cat-and-mouse gameRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49283237618446210802008-08-09T00:48:00.000-04:002008-08-09T00:48:00.000-04:00"Dulles then cites several popes (Stephen, Damasus..."Dulles then cites several popes (Stephen, Damasus, Siricius, Innocent I, Leo I) in support of Roman primacy."<BR/><BR/>Dulles is giving us only the evidence that supports his side. He never mentions Cyprian's two confrontations with Rome's authority or the fact that a later Council of Carthage under Augustine stated that Rome would have no authority to restore a defrocked presbyter to his former position.<BR/><BR/>The list of examples could go on and on.<BR/><BR/>"Or is this just a face-saving distinction which Catholic theologians build into Magisterial claims to buffer them from falsification?"<BR/><BR/>I get that feeling a lot when reading Catholic apologists' qualifications.<BR/><BR/>"“Except for the definition of the Immaculate Conception, there is little clarity about which papal statements prior to Vatican I are irreformable. Most authors would agree on about half a dozen statements” (72)."<BR/><BR/>And yet, all Catholics are obliged to believe and conform to all of those decrees even though many of them taught falsehood. Great.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88240476763919558712008-08-08T23:59:00.000-04:002008-08-08T23:59:00.000-04:00"“It eventually became a rule that the decisions o..."“It eventually became a rule that the decisions of the council could not be valid without Roman approval” (24)."<BR/><BR/>I'd add to Steve's remarks that this was not because Rome was special due to Petrine succession but because <BR/><BR/>a.) it was the capital of the empire through which people from all over the empire went through thus guaranteeing that it would not fall into any one extreme theological position being taught in an isolated sector of the empire. This much was stated at Chalcedon (I believe) and has been admitted by virtually every modern historical theologian, both Protestant and Catholic.<BR/><BR/>b.) it was centered in the Latin part of the empire which lacked the philosophical emphasis of the East which in turn meant that there was a lack of philosophical and theological speculation. This meant that the beliefs there were somewhat stagnant compared with the rest of the empire, a relatively good guide to historical orthodoxy.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44348872331980831372008-08-08T22:53:00.000-04:002008-08-08T22:53:00.000-04:00I will myself to assign a suitable degree of assen...<I>I will myself to assign a suitable degree of assent to a given article of faith. It should be unnecessary to point out that this entire framework is a psychological fantasy. Although we do have degrees of belief, this is spontaneous.</I><BR/><BR/>The only thing spontaneous about the convoluted explanation of all the caveats and contingencies and discussions described by Cardinal Dulles is the hilarity.<BR/><BR/>Fine work again Steve!<BR/>You too Gene.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46674065986109135932008-08-08T21:35:00.000-04:002008-08-08T21:35:00.000-04:00"If we begin with that premise, then the historica..."If we begin with that premise, then the historical outcome falsifies the premise since, as a practical matter, the Magisterium hasn’t begun to issue an official commentary on the Bible. Just go through every verse of the Bible and ask yourself what is the correct interpretation according to the Magisterium? Where would you find the correct interpretation? You won’t."<BR/><BR/>A Roman Catholic might counterargue that the Vatican's teachings repressent the sum of what Scripture has to offer. For example, something like the Catechism of the Catholic Church takes the entire teaching of Scripture and more or less summarizes it in block form, instead of offering line-by-line exegesis. Now, I find that underwhelming, but I'm wondering what your thoughts are.Matheteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13527032591499860552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44939027207488697932008-08-08T20:51:00.000-04:002008-08-08T20:51:00.000-04:00Perhaps Lt. Commander Data can perform this operat...<I>Perhaps Lt. Commander Data can perform this operation on himself. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but it will take 2000.1248456345638934 years to do so - and only in consultation with T'Pol, Spock, Tuvok, Seven of Nine, and the entire Borg Collective.<BR/><BR/>Finding the right road to Magisterial Authority seems to me more like trying work with DS9's main computer. Trek fans will know what I'm talking about...GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39809557681436019732008-08-08T19:27:00.000-04:002008-08-08T19:27:00.000-04:00“In establishing the Magisterium, Christ responded...<I>“In establishing the Magisterium, Christ responded to a real human need. People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. Even the most qualified scholars who have access to the Bible and the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief” (4).<BR/><BR/>i) Dulles is equivocating. Notice the shift from access to revelation to disagreements over the meaning of revelation. These are two separate issues which require separate arguments.<BR/><BR/>ii) As a matter of fact, 2nd Temple Jews did fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief, even though they shared common access to the same revelation. Therefore, it would be unhistorical to stipulate that serious disagreement is unacceptable, and then reason back from that unacceptable consequence to the necessity of a Magisterium. God, in fact, tolerated a measure of serious disagreement among members of the covenant community.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>I might add that this logic is reversable on the Roman Catholic. Since there have been and continue to be "serious disagreements" among Roman Catholics, then the Magisterium does not serve the purpose for which Roman Catholics argue its necessity. Ergo, it is (a) unnecessary or unworkable, (b) no better than the Protestant rule of faith. Let's take a contemporary example: Moderate Catholics disagree with Conservative Catholics - laity and hierarchy alike - over some ethical and moral issues that the Magisterium has supposedly defined. But in defending the conservative view, conservatives can't seem to agree among themselves on the appropriate argument - arguments that Moderates deny. So, who do we believe? Conservative Catholics say "the Magisterium," but that assumes the point at issue. Further it amounts to truth by stipulation.<BR/><BR/><I>iv) Today we rely on the written word of the Apostles and their deputies (e.g. Mark, Luke). If we were to press the logic of Dulles’ argument, then that would be an argument, not for a prelatial Magisterium, but a scribal Magisterium. We rely on the work of scribes who faithfully copied the scriptures from one generation to the next. But one doesn’t need to be a bishop or pope to transcribe the Bible.</I><BR/><BR/>This is true, I might add, Steve that if this is the logical outcome of Dulles view, it not only means that it's an argument for a scribal Magisterium, it leads to, at a bare minimum, an argument not for <I>conserving revelation </I> but the possibility of <I>continuing</I> revelation, for it's easy to move from conserving the written text to adding to the written text - and we know scribes have done so either purposefully or accidentally. So, we'd be asking questions like, " What is Rome's position on, let's say, the Johannine comma, the short or long ending of Mark, etc.?" So, even an argument for a scribal Magisterium doesn't necessarily satisfy the utilitarian stipulation of the wider argument for a need for a Magisterium.<BR/><BR/><I>“The hierarchy, as Cardinal Newman pointed out, frequently consults the laity before defining doctrines. After a doc trine is proclaimed, the laity are obliged to accept it, loyally deferring to the Magisterium” (45).<BR/><BR/>Isn’t that a transparent charade? Even though, superficially speaking, the laymen propose while the bishops dispose, yet the bishops merely ratify popular opinion. There’s no “deference” here. The laity submits to its own opinions.</I><BR/><BR/>Not only that, but if the hierarchy consults the laity before defining doctrines:<BR/><BR/>1. If there's a dispute, this gives the hierarchy reason to disregard the laity.<BR/>2. The hierarchy is in every position to pick only laity it know beforehand will agree with them, eg. a bunch of "yes men.<BR/>3. If there is a dispute after the consultation, assuming the hierarchy did what it wanted, not only did the <I>laity</I> determine the dogma, it gives the hierarchy reason to punt back to the committee to blame them later on - and then "revise" the dogma later on in a matter more acceptable.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, I've been implicitly pointing this out to some Romanists on Turretinfan's blog lately. This makes the Sensus Fidelium a moot point.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com