hans kung, papal infallibility, vatican 2 and so on...

[bananabrain]

hi, this is mostly for thomas, but also for anyone else that's interested. i just read two histories of the papacy on holiday, one of which being by hans kung, the eminent catholic theologian.

Hans Küng - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i was struck by his analysis of the period of john paul ii as being basically regressive and illiberal, despite gesture politics towards ecumenism and interfaith dialogue, which seems to be continuing under benedict xvi; i was wondering how people feel about this.

is the legacy of vatican 2 being undermined by support for ultra-conservative sects like opus dei, hidebound rejectionism vis-a-vis abortion, contraception, women priests, celibacy and divorce, supersition (think sacred heart of jesus and 500 new saints), revisionism (e.g. canonising pius xii, the tridentine rite) and, most of all papal infallibility?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Francis king]

as a non practising lapsed catholic non-theologian...

I think the legacy of vatican 2 IS being undermined by ultra-othrodox church leaders...

for me, JP2 laid the foundations for modern catholics, and I had hoped our new pope would take up the reins and make the church more worthy of its "catholic" descriptor...

[Thomas]

Hi bananabrain,

Originally Posted by bananabrain

hi, this is mostly for thomas, but also for anyone else that's interested. i just read two histories of the papacy on holiday, one of which being by hans kung, the eminent catholic theologian. i was struck by his analysis of the period of john paul ii as being basically regressive and illiberal, despite gesture politics towards ecumenism and interfaith dialogue, which seems to be continuing under benedict xvi; i was wondering how people feel about this.

Gee, thanks pal ...

I haven't read Küng, so can't comment on what he said, so all I can do is comment generally on my view of the papacy subsequent to Vatican II.

Pope John XXIII kicked off the Council in '63 in an attempt to "let some fresh air into the Church" and to promote an aggiornamento, which translates as "bringing up to date". Bearing in mind this was the 60s, such a concept was open to a multitude of interpretations, and inevitably there was a broad range of opinion as to what that term meant, and what should be done. It's a huge subject, but I'll give you my views. Bear in mind I'm an old fart and a traditionalist ...

Two things about Councils. One is that historically they were only ever called in response to some order of crisis, when there is a need for a response, a statement from the Church as whole on a matter of faith and/or morals, on what is orthodox Catholic faith and what is not. Thus they tended to put forth a more precise definition of doctrine. It's a fundamental truth of the history of the councils that they never 'invent' new doctrines, but rather affirm, restate, and define in greater scope, depth and detail, that which always has been the Fides Qua, the Rule of Faith.

What Vatican II inaugurated was the view not of 'the church against the world' — ecclesia contra mundum — but rather of 'the church in the world' — and thus as well as opening windows, there was to be an opening of doors. What was never intended, but what many tried to engineer, was to throw out the principles on which the Church had stood for two millenia.

For example. VII allowed for Mass to be said in the vernacular. What emerged, somehow, was the banning of the Latin Mass. That was not intended, and was then and is now not the case. Yet I recall being at Mass, as a child, and being asked to pray for those 'misguided souls' who requested the Latin Mass to continue. Lets think about that: Most parishes (in those days) celebrated the mass three/four times on a Sunday. Was it too much to ask that one of those be in Latin? Or once a month? Assuming the mid-morning mass a family mass, why not the early morning, the evening? Yet today, the amount of criticism from people who do not even go to mass about Pope Benedict's suggestion that the Latin Mass be reinstituted, is quite amazing. But back to the plot ... within a year, the Latin mass was effectively outlawed.

And so it went on. The liberalising element just threw stuff out wholesale, and we're still suffering the fallout, not least of all a major schism in France, and the decimation of congregations across the board. One aspect you're probably aware of is the sexual disorders among the American clergy, which dates back to the liberal policies governing American seminaries in the 70s. It's a known fact that is surfacing only now, that anyone showing a 'genuine vocation to serve God' was considered suspect by the seminarian intakes, whilst those with an open 'it's all relative' outlook were welcomed. I can cite research if anyone wants.

So is the Churc h following VII 'regressive' and 'illiberal'? Not really. In many ways it was very progressive — but unless you read its Consitutional Documents, you won't see it. They are major works of theological insight that still provide a rich seam of enquiry ...

But what annoys people is that the Church elected not to 'swing' with everyone else in the 60s. Opening the windows did not mean 'let it all hang out' nor did it mean 'do your own thing' which was the litany of the 60s movements — In short, the Church decided not to succumb to the Philosophy of Relativism that was to shape Western thinking for the rest of the century. A philosophy which is now showing itself to be somewhat creaky...

The theologians of the Ressourcement Theologie were the architects then of Vatican II's aggiornamento — The Dominican Yves Congar was one of those called to Rome to take part, after 15 years on the Index, in bringing the Church 'up to date'. They saw their task required them to go back to the very roots of Christianity, to mine the rich seams of spirituality to enlighten a teaching that had become rigid, sterile, dry and enervated. This was the fresh air John XXIII wanted in, a Church that was actively, openly, and visibly engaged — at all levels — with its central Mysteries, rather than a church which was in danger of becoming a scholastic anachronism, an ethical humanism with liturgical overtones.

No doubt Hans Küng saw it another way ... but heck ... what does he know, anyway?

One closing comment, on contentious subjects ... the question of a female priesthood, say. Intellectuals usually have the best arguments, or at the least can make a good argument, but they do not always reflect what the majority of the people want, rather they present what seems to them reasonable, and logical, and assume that the less intelligent should fall in line with their thinking. A female priesthood in the Anglican Church has split the church in two and led to a flood of Anglicans joining Catholic orders. The argument over homosexuality overshadows every other concern the church might have. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has complained bitterly that infatuation with sex has blined the church to every other concern, and I agree, and see it in my own Church ... not that we should reverse our teachings, far from it ... but there is hunger, and poverty, and injustice.

The Catholic Church may indeed one day allow a female priesthood — but that time is not yet, and the damage will be worse than the achievement.

Take the recent statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury about Sharia Courts in the UK. Uproar! Demonstrations! Press hysteria! Calls for resignation! Questions in the House! Yet Jews have their courts ... we Catholics have our courts (and remember, we were only let back into the UK about 150 years ago) ...

Academic theologians of every ilk run the danger of occupying ivory towers and are usually not in touch with the people outside their academic institutions. Hans Küng might well be amongst them. Karl Rahner is another. Pope John Paul II was a pastoral theologian, he has the common touch, which is why the media loved him, and that's why he's so popular — Wil, for example, rates him quite highly — yet one look at JPII's theology and you realise that I am something of a liberal! JPII is very Augustine, very Thomist ...

Pope Benedict is the other way round. He's a theologian's theologian, so the media distrust him cos they know he's too intelligent for them, and they set about damning him, before he'd even opened his mouth. Joseph Ratzinger was conscripted into the SS as a 12 year old child ... so he's obviously a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi. Günther Grass volunteered for the SS, but he's OK 'cos' he writes cool books.

I read one review of Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth, in a mainstream UK intelligent broadsheet — which was mostly a negative criticism of ... the structure of the bibliography. He'll never get a decent press.

A prolific author, he has said he plans few documents from the Chair of St Peter ... so far, two, the first on Love, the second on Hope ... any media comment ... zilch. All we've had so far is one out-of-context comment from a 45 minute speech mailed to every Islamic news agency in the world. Result, a nun shot dead within 24 hours.

Meanwhile, union between the Christian denominations draws ever closer (a Copt and I are having greate fun elsewhere), and dialogue with Islam, the Jews, Buddhism, continues ... but the only stuff you'll read is negative.

Thomas

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I haven't read Küng, so can't comment on what he said

*wags finger* well, perhaps you should! it sounds to me like he's had quite a tough deal.

Bearing in mind this was the 60s, such a concept was open to a multitude of interpretations, and inevitably there was a broad range of opinion as to what that term meant, and what should be done.

sure, i get that, but i guess at least part of the point of the conference was to try and resolve some of the differences between, say, the conservative bits of the curia and the feedback on the ground.

Two things about Councils. One is that historically they were only ever called in response to some order of crisis, when there is a need for a response, a statement from the Church as whole on a matter of faith and/or morals, on what is orthodox Catholic faith and what is not.

which is presumably why it was VI in 1870 that felt the need to rule on infallibility, right?

It's a fundamental truth of the history of the councils that they never 'invent' new doctrines, but rather affirm, restate, and define in greater scope, depth and detail, that which always has been the Fides Qua, the Rule of Faith.

well, that's a faultlessly conservative answer, but hardly adequate when faced with things that are obviously introduced later on, like "ex cathedra" infallibility and clerical celibacy, both of which are hardly ancient. and what about an even better example, the immaculate conception of mary, which was introduced by pius IX in 1854 - where is that in the "fides qua"?

What was never intended, but what many tried to engineer, was to throw out the principles on which the Church had stood for two millennia.

look, where the principles concerned had been around for two millennia, fair enough - but what about throwing out something like the "syllabus of modern errors", which dates only back as far as 1864? that condemns *socialism*, which i think would have absolutely appalled jesus. what about the index of prohibited books?

For example. VII allowed for Mass to be said in the vernacular. What emerged, somehow, was the banning of the Latin Mass.

this is a fair point about the baby/bathwater principle that you get in all reforms - judaism is no exception. nonetheless, the problem of modernity remains and ducking it is no solution.

a known fact that is surfacing only now, that anyone showing a 'genuine vocation to serve God' was considered suspect by the seminarian intakes, whilst those with an open 'it's all relative' outlook were welcomed.

ok, but you're presenting a bit of a false dichotomy here, which suggests that it's "all change or no change" and i don't think that's what i would be driving at, nor certainly is it what küng intended.

So is the Church following VII 'regressive' and 'illiberal'? Not really. In many ways it was very progressive — but unless you read its Consitutional Documents, you won't see it. They are major works of theological insight that still provide a rich seam of enquiry ...

yes, but that's actually precisely my point - we *should* be seeing it. it does your actual rank-and-file catholics no good at all if it's sitting in a constitutional document, whilst the day-to-day reality in relation to, say, matters of personal status and medical ethics remains hidebound.

But what annoys people is that the Church elected not to 'swing' with everyone else in the 60s. Opening the windows did not mean 'let it all hang out' nor did it mean 'do your own thing' which was the litany of the 60s movements — In short, the Church decided not to succumb to the Philosophy of Relativism that was to shape Western thinking for the rest of the century. A philosophy which is now showing itself to be somewhat creaky...

i don't disagree with any of that, *BUT* instances where the church shows itself to be blatantly unfair, prejudiced or discriminatory cannot be addressed by it.

They saw their task required them to go back to the very roots of Christianity, to mine the rich seams of spirituality to enlighten a teaching that had become rigid, sterile, dry and enervated.

that is *precisely* küng's point. i really suggest you read his book.

One closing comment, on contentious subjects ... the question of a female priesthood, say. Intellectuals usually have the best arguments, or at the least can make a good argument, but they do not always reflect what the majority of the people want, rather they present what seems to them reasonable, and logical, and assume that the less intelligent should fall in line with their thinking.

basically, your line is that he's an elitist and the rank and file don't want it. unfortunately, this is a prescription for a church of the lowest common denominator, which would mean that you would get a brain drain of the "spiritually middle class", leaving you only with the "lumpen proletariat" of spirituality and a bunch of ultra-conservative theologians at the top. in fact, it looks to me like a prescription for schism and, moreover a continuation of the current strategy which, if you ask me, has utterly failed. i take your point about anglicans going catholic over women priests, but you have to admit that the sort of anglicans you are getting are the anne widdecombes, the die-hard conservatives, if i may be so bold. this may work over the short term, but in 25 years where will your young families and the next generation of leadership be coming from?

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has complained bitterly that infatuation with sex has blined the church to every other concern, and I agree, and see it in my own Church ... not that we should reverse our teachings, far from it ... but there is hunger, and poverty, and injustice.

oh, i agree, but there remains injustice within the church, too!

Academic theologians of every ilk run the danger of occupying ivory towers and are usually not in touch with the people outside their academic institutions. Hans Küng might well be amongst them.

i'm not an academic theologian, a catholic or even a christian, so my knowledge can hardly be described as "ivory tower" - küng's programme for change looks to me to be unutterably practical; there's not a word in it that wouldn't make sense to the sort of christian that doesn't see modernity and christianity as fundamentally opposed. i think this accusation of yours is quite unfair. i think you ought to read his book first.

Wil, for example, rates him quite highly — yet one look at JPII's theology and you realise that I am something of a liberal! JPII is very Augustine, very Thomist ...

both of whom are *highly* mediaeval, hierarchical and dated in their outlook if you ask me, from what i've read.

Pope Benedict is the other way round. He's a theologian's theologian, so the media distrust him cos they know he's too intelligent for them, and they set about damning him, before he'd even opened his mouth.

look, i read his actual speech over the "paleologus quote" furore and frankly, it wasn't exactly a fuss over nothing as far as i could see. furthermore, i don't think the orthodox churches or anglicanism are being treated truly ecumenically - all this stuff about other churches being "fundamentally in error" is precisely what i'm talking about, unless i've failed to understand the implications of that. what is more, if he's a "theologian's theologian", surely what goes for küng in terms of ivory-tower thinking should be even more so true for benny 16. i'm more prone to give him a fair deal than most for the simple reason that i know people who know him personally and think he's a good guy and that he's more liberal than he's given credit for. i must say, however, i've not seen much evidence of it so far.

dialogue with Islam, the Jews, Buddhism, continues ... but the only stuff you'll read is negative.

it is hard to know how to take comments such as the one made by r. david rosen (someone else i know personally and have a lot of time for) about the reference to the jews in the tridentine rite, in that case.

remember, i'm not gunning for catholicism or anything, so i think we have the potential for a good discussion here!

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

*wags finger* well, perhaps you should! it sounds to me like he's had quite a tough deal.

Gimme a break!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

which is presumably why it was VI in 1870 that felt the need to rule on infallibility, right?

Yes. The Church affirmed nothing more than had always been the accepted rule — well, as she sees it, I suppose I must allow ... but in the end she has to go with her own conscience.

The Magisterium, when it speaks ex cathedra, speaks with the authority of the Ecumenical Councils that were before it. Even before the schism with the East, the Bishop of Rome was given preference in Council.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

well, that's a faultlessly conservative answer, but hardly adequate when faced with things that are obviously introduced later on, like "ex cathedra" infallibility and clerical celibacy, both of which are hardly ancient. and what about an even better example, the immaculate conception of mary, which was introduced by pius IX in 1854 - where is that in the "fides qua"?

In those two cases, I think both are. You can trace both back through the Councils and in the writings of the Church generally.

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is an interesting one. It has been believed since the time of the Fathers, but was only stated in 1854 to clarify the Church's position in the face of question.

The definition gives many reasons, not the least the we believe the dogma is supported by Scripture (e.g. Mary's being greeted by Angel Gabriel as "full of grace" or "highly favoured") and as her role as theotokos.

In 1858 the Marian Apparition at Lourdes announced herself to the child as "I am the Immaculate Conception" which seemed to swing any residual the argument.

But I admit to conservatism.

Did you know the Resurrection of Christ has never formally been defined? Why? Because it's never been doubted.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

look, where the principles concerned had been around for two millennia, fair enough - but what about throwing out something like the "syllabus of modern errors", which dates only back as far as 1864? that condemns *socialism*, which I think would have absolutely appalled jesus. what about the index of prohibited books?

Hang on a 'mo. That document considers 'pantheism, naturalism and absolute rationalism', points on which I agree. The term 'socialism' is not (sadly) defined in the document, so one could argue it does not discount social justice — whilst similarly it can be criticised for using 'socialism' in a perjorative context which might owe something to the conservatism of the day.

So I would not throw the document out — I'd define more precisely what I meant by 'socialism'.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

nonetheless, the problem of modernity remains and ducking it is no solution.

I don't think it's been ducked. I think it's been confronted, and I think we're still in the throes of that confrontation.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

ok, but you're presenting a bit of a false dichotomy here, which suggests that it's "all change or no change" and i don't think that's what i would be driving at, nor certainly is it what küng intended.

I can't speak for Küng. Nor do I mean to imply such extremes. For as many people think VII did not go far enough, many thought it went too far. The Church's first priority is to listen to its people, then dialogue with the world. The 'damage' within the Church was substantial — the sedevacantists and the SSPX under Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre evidence that. There's no point in a Church bending to the will of the world to such an extent she breaks her back.

Someone said a year in the Vatican is like a week in politics ... we never move fast enough, we never move far enough ...

Originally Posted by bananabrain

yes, but that's actually precisely my point - we *should* be seeing it. it does your actual rank-and-file catholics no good at all if it's sitting in a constitutional document, whilst the day-to-day reality in relation to, say, matters of personal status and medical ethics remains hidebound.

Whether they're hidebound is a matter of opinion. I think the day-to-day Catholic does see it ... the Liturgy of the Church is a radically different entity to what it was in my childhood.

There was far, far more to the Novus Ordo than a matter of language. I think the NO is great, I think the symbolism is often unfocussed, and I think the English text is often mundane. That's committees for you. If we'd have given it to a lyricist or a poet, it might be something else. I'm a symbolist, but symbolism'ds old hat, too ...

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i don't disagree with any of that, *BUT* instances where the church shows itself to be blatantly unfair, prejudiced or discriminatory cannot be addressed by it.

If that's the case, I hope and pray those faults are rectified...

Originally Posted by bananabrain

basically, your line is that he's an elitist and the rank and file don't want it.

Not quite so starkly. I'm saying there is a pastoral consideration.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

unfortunately, this is a prescription for a church of the lowest common denominator...

In my view that's what the modernisers wanted to achieve.

Benedict XVI has written two encyclicals, one on Love, one on Hope. There's theology enough in both to show how forward looking and clear-sighted the Church is, and how this differs not one whit from what She has always believed and preached. Pope JPII's Theology of the Body is his magnum opus, and that, too, is a philosophically significant document, by modern standards.

The 'traditionalists' who have ascended the Chair of St Peter have been first-rate theologians with global reputations. One reason why the modernists have not trumped them is, perhaps, their argument is not sound enough? I can't say, as 'we' would refute what they hold to be the case.

I'm saying we're still close to events (by our measure) ... I have to go with my gut, and my gut is with these guys.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

which would mean that you would get a brain drain of the "spiritually middle class", leaving you only with the "lumpen proletariat" of spirituality and a bunch of ultra-conservative theologians at the top.

There was a huge shift from Roman to Greek Orthodoxy after VII. I looked there first, before returning to Rome. It was because I would have no voice there, that I sided with Rome, too, believe it or not. Theological debate has always been full-on in Rome, that's why so much publicity ... the Orthodox have criticised us heavily for that ... they think we have a tendency to ask questions on topics which should be left in reverential silence.

What the Church wanted then I think, and needs more than ever now, is a Sense of the Sacred. We lost more than we gained in that department, by 'de-mystifying' the Church, forgetting that the central articles of faith are in a Mystery.

My complaint with the Novus Ordo and all the modern liturgical practices, is that there is a danger of the congregation celebrating the fact that it's there, rather than what it's there for ... more social Christianity than Spiritual Christianity ... more spirit than Spirit, if you see what I mean.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

in fact, it looks to me like a prescription for schism and, moreover a continuation of the current strategy which, if you ask me, has utterly failed.

I don't think so. I think we are recovering from overzealousness, but that's me...

Originally Posted by bananabrain

but in 25 years where will your young families and the next generation of leadership be coming from?

From the traditional values, else we're in danger of having to re-build the Church every time there's a shift in cultural trend. These cycles run longer than a generation. You have to take the long view.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

oh, i agree, but there remains injustice within the church, too!

Mea culpa.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i'm not an academic theologian, a catholic or even a christian, so my knowledge can hardly be described as "ivory tower" - küng's programme for change looks to me to be unutterably practical; there's not a word in it that wouldn't make sense to the sort of christian that doesn't see modernity and christianity as fundamentally opposed. i think this accusation of yours is quite unfair. i think you ought to read his book first.

True. But I would say he's not the only theologian with a view. I could ask you to read those critical of him, to understand their reasoning ... but I'm not tit-for-tatting ... you're right, I can't comment on Küng as I don't really know his stance.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

both of whom are *highly* mediaeval, hierarchical and dated in their outlook if you ask me, from what i've read.

And I've read highly refreshing and modern-looking ... and timeless ... honestly! It's all a matter of opinion. Thomism is still a lively pursuit for philosophers ... I don't think you can write them off.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

look, i read his actual speech over the "paleologus quote" furore and frankly, it wasn't exactly a fuss over nothing as far as i could see.

Again, many Muslim authorities supported him ... even if they don't like his total view. He has a right to his beliefs.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

furthermore, i don't think the orthodox churches or anglicanism are being treated truly ecumenically - all this stuff about other churches being "fundamentally in error" is precisely what i'm talking about, unless i've failed to understand the implications of that.

No. But I don't agree either. We can't all be right ... and I don't see why that obliges me to say we're all equally wrong ... or pretend the differences don't exist. Many have applauded him for simply refusing to politely ignore fundamental differences and issues.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

what is more, if he's a "theologian's theologian", surely what goes for küng in terms of ivory-tower thinking should be even more so true for benny 16. i'm more prone to give him a fair deal than most for the simple reason that i know people who know him personally and think he's a good guy and that he's more liberal than he's given credit for. i must say, however, i've not seen much evidence of it so far.

Let's go with them then!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

it is hard to know how to take comments such as the one made by r. david rosen (someone else i know personally and have a lot of time for) about the reference to the jews in the tridentine rite, in that case.

I'll have to read up, bananabrain, sorry ...

Sheesh ... I've got a reading list as long as my arm, and now I've got you to add to it!!

Pax tecum,

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Gimme a break!

hehe never want to be on the wrong end of a BB *wags finger* or Harrumph or herr herr herr or when he beats his rod to the ground repeatedly.

gotta say I love those.

and equally as much Thomas's responses..

great conversation to watch guys

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Gimme a break!

hehe - ok, sour grapes and all that, but it sounds to me like he definitely has reason to be fecked off with the current incumbent.

The Church affirmed nothing more than had always been the accepted rule

i believe there were two famous cases of errant popes still being discussed at VI in 1870, though they were eventually ignored. and honorius I was condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils in the C7th, which was reconfirmed by his successor leo II, which doesn't sound like an accepted rule to me. küng is apparently unable to date infallibility earlier than 1377 when it was introduced by a franciscan called petrus olivi.

The Magisterium, when it speaks ex cathedra, speaks with the authority of the Ecumenical Councils that were before it.

ok, that's the current definition - what i am saying, however, is that for the first millennium nobody regarded the bishop of rome as having "special inspiration from the holy spirit".

Even before the schism with the East, the Bishop of Rome was given preference in Council.

but weren't the legates of leo the great, the first great promulgator of roman primacy, refused precedence at the council of chalcedon in 451? in fact, leo's letter on the relationship between the human and the Divine in christ was first checked by the council to see if it met their standards of orthodoxy. doesn't sound like preference to me, moreover, constantinople was given equal status at this council.

In those two cases, I think both ["ex cathedra" infallibility and clerical celibacy] are [ancient].

i can concede that a tendency towards clerical celibacy existed from very early on in the western church, but surely the fact that the eastern church allowed it to continue allows us to conclude that it was by no means clear that such a position should be universal until far later and, moreover until after the great schism.

and while we're on the subject, you said earlier about women priests:

The Catholic Church may indeed one day allow a female priesthood — but that time is not yet, and the damage will be worse than the achievement.

yet in the early church and, indeed, up until the 5th century, female deacons were certainly ordained! surely you could countenance a step like that with a view to rectifying an ancient error borne out of prejudice?

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is an interesting one. It has been believed since the time of the Fathers, but was only stated in 1854 to clarify the Church's position in the face of question.

but where's the *evidence* that it was believed that early? this is the best i can do at such short notice, i'm afraid it's from wikipedia:

The Conception of Mary was celebrated as a liturgical feast in England from the ninth century, and the doctrine of her "holy" or "immaculate" conception was first formulated in a tract by Eadmer, companion and biographer of the better-known St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033-1109), and later popularized by the archbishop's nephew, Anselm the Younger.

the C11th is hardly the time of the fathers.

The definition gives many reasons, not the least the we believe the dogma is supported by Scripture (e.g. Mary's being greeted by Angel Gabriel as "full of grace" or "highly favoured") and as her role as theotokos.

there's a bit of a jump from such an to immaculate conception, wouldn't you say?

In 1858 the Marian Apparition at Lourdes announced herself to the child as "I am the Immaculate Conception" which seemed to swing any residual the argument.

some might call such a "deus ex machina" resolution of the issue a suspiciously convenient convenience given the time at which it showed up.

The term 'socialism' is not (sadly) defined in the [syllabus of modern errors] so one could argue it does not discount social justice — whilst similarly it can be criticised for using 'socialism' in a pejorative context which might owe something to the conservatism of the day.

i think you're twisting and turning like a twisty-turny thing here, thomas; what you appear to be saying is that the church was coming down firmly on the side of conservatism, but you are glossing over the fact that the conservatives in question conflated all of these issues in the same way as the syllabus and gave a firm thumbs-down to issues of social justice on the grounds that the poor should be content with their lot - a position which the church, to its shame, supported.

I don't think [modernity has] been ducked. I think it's been confronted, and I think we're still in the throes of that confrontation.

however, the confrontation appears at least before VII to be a high-handed gainsaying of any benefit to be found in modernity.

The Church's first priority is to listen to its people, then dialogue with the world.

so why is it not listening to the large numbers of people that say that the church's positions on abortion, contraception, celibacy and homosexuality are what prevent them from being "good catholics" - look at south america; almost everyone uses contraception there!

I'm saying there is a pastoral consideration.

so am *i*. i am saying that you are ruling large numbers of people out of catholicism to assuage the conservatism of a smaller number of purists - surely the meaning of a "catholic" or universal church is that it should do no such thing?

Benedict XVI has written two encyclicals, one on Love, one on Hope. There's theology enough in both to show how forward looking and clear-sighted the Church is, and how this differs not one whit from what She has always believed and preached.

can you give me an example for discussion?

The 'traditionalists' who have ascended the Chair of St Peter have been first-rate theologians with global reputations. One reason why the modernists have not trumped them is, perhaps, their argument is not sound enough?

deary me, it sounds like you're saying that the right argument always wins without fear or favour! forgive me if i am a tiny bit sceptical of this - i think it flies in the face of human nature.

My complaint with the Novus Ordo and all the modern liturgical practices, is that there is a danger of the congregation celebrating the fact that it's there, rather than what it's there for ... more social Christianity than Spiritual Christianity ... more spirit than Spirit, if you see what I mean.

yes, but you cannot have one without the other; surely your problem is one of degree, not one of substance?

True. But I would say he's not the only theologian with a view. I could ask you to read those critical of him, to understand their reasoning ...

sure - recommend me something for my reading list!

And I've read highly refreshing and modern-looking ... and timeless ... honestly!

perhaps we need to have a separate discussion on augustine elsewhere!

We can't all be right ... and I don't see why that obliges me to say we're all equally wrong ... or pretend the differences don't exist. Many have applauded him for simply refusing to politely ignore fundamental differences and issues.

to be precise: we can't all be right *if we make universalist claims, particularly of superiority and exclusivist salvationism*. that is the major difference between judaism and its two daughter religions.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

hehe - ok, sour grapes and all that...

I've read quite a critique of Küng that would indicate he's the sour grape, because VII did not buy his agenda wholesale. As ever, there's two sides to every story.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

but it sounds to me like he definitely has reason to be fecked off with the current incumbent.

And we've got every reason to be fecked off with Küng!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

... which doesn't sound like an accepted rule to me. küng is apparently unable to date infallibility earlier than 1377 when it was introduced by a franciscan called petrus olivi.

Well I think that's Küng's selective — and indeed partisan — presentation of the issue. The evidence is clear from the debate about the wording of the Creed at the Council of Constantinople in 381, because they regarded the Symbol of Nicea, 325, as inviolate. Every Ecumenical Council has always held that what prior councils have stated is infallibly the Rule of Faith.

Also the Pope isn't infallible in himself, as history only too clearly demonstrates. The Office is infallible.

No papal constitutional ruling on doctrine has ever been made by a pope in isolation — always in discussion with the Church.

Technically, the pope — as first amongst equals — speaks for the whole Church, all the bishops but, technically, when all the Bishops are in unison, they can in theory over-rule a pope. The situation has never arisen, so we don't know what would happen if it did.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

ok, that's the current definition - what i am saying, however, is that for the first millennium nobody regarded the bishop of rome as having "special inspiration from the holy spirit".

Oh, bananabrain! I'm not trying to trump you, mate ... but you have been given a one-sided view of the argument:

Council of Sardica 342:
"If any bishop loses the judgement in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew ... let us honour the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgement write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters ..." .

"If some bishop be deposed by the judgement of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood ... another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgement"

Optatus of Milevus 367
"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head ... the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner... "

Council of Constantinople I 381
"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome".

Jerome 396
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails"

"The church here (in Syria) is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own ... while I keep crying, "He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!" ... Therefore, I implore your blessedness ... tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria."

There's loads more like this, that indicate that the Bishop of Rome was always the Primary Seat of the Church.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

but weren't the legates of Leo the Great, the first great promulgator of roman primacy, refused precedence at the council of chalcedon in 451?

No, that was at the 'Robber Council of Ephesus' in 449, when the Emperor in the East tried to take control of the Church, by insisting that Constantinople was the seat of the Empire, not Rome. 130 bishops in attendance, one Dioscorus presided, by command of the emperor, and the emperor denied the vote to any bishop who had voted against his support of Eutyches two years earlier.

At Chalcedon 451, with over 500 bishops attending, the papal legate Paschanius was sent to preside. Paschanius refused to give Dioscorus (who had carried out the emperor's command and excommunicated the pope) a seat at the council, and further ordered the reinstatement of Theodoret and that he be given a seat, but this move caused such an uproar among the council fathers, that Theodoret also sat in the nave, though he was given a vote in the proceedings.

The new emperor Marcian wished to bring proceedings to a more speedy end, and asked the council to make a pronouncement on the doctrine of the Incarnation before continuing the trial. The council fathers felt that no new creed was necessary, and that the doctrine had been laid out clearly in Leo's letter to Flavian, by then called "The Tome". The second session of the council ended with shouts from the bishops, "This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!"
Go on, the Latins! ... sorry, b. old chap ... got completely enthused there ... !

Originally Posted by bananabrain

I can concede that a tendency towards clerical celibacy existed from very early on in the western church...

In the whole Church ... even the East favours celibacy, but only the West made the rule. So what was desired became the rule.

if you ask me, I can see a time when married men might be accepted into the priesthood, as indeed married Anglicans can take up Catholic orders. But I would see that happening under the Eastern Rule. The fact that priests are married in the East, and the West views their ordination and the sacraments of the Eastern Church as valid, counts for a lot.

The East, on the other hand, is a lot less forgiving ... they regard the West as invalid.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

and while we're on the subject, you said earlier about women priests ... yet in the early church and, indeed, up until the 5th century, female deacons were certainly ordained! surely you could countenance a step like that with a view to rectifying an ancient error borne out of prejudice?

Women serve as Eucharistic Ministers today, which is parallel to the diaconate in some respects, without the requirements, so in some ways the argument is invalid?

[quote=bananabrain;142099]but where's the *evidence* of the Immaculate Conception? In the Fathers. Not the 11th, more the 3rd. I'll try and dig out some references for you.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

some might call such a "deus ex machina" resolution of the issue a suspiciously convenient convenience given the time at which it showed up.

Oh, ye of little faith!!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i think you're twisting and turning like a twisty-turny thing here, thomas;

Of course I am ... 'give 'em an inch, and they'll want a mile' ... so I won't budge even an inch. I'm saying that one words in the heading of a document can be rectified without having to rewrite the whole document, or dismantling the Magisterium!

The Church is surrounded by people who are desperate to shout "Ah! Gotcha!" at any opportunity.

I'm not saying that the politics of the day was right, it was wrong, but I'm not saying the politics of today is right either ... so that fact that certain things offends the modern sensibility does not mean they're wrong ...

Originally Posted by bananabrain

however, the confrontation appears at least before VII to be a high-handed gainsaying of any benefit to be found in modernity.

Not at all ... The Church is still hosting scientific debates and issues, what we reject is high-mined statements from secular modernity about what the Church is, or what the Church can and can't say ... there's Christians on this forum who are ready to argue that Scripture is myth, or made up, or this, or that ... we simply say no, it's Revelation, what happened actually happened, you are wrong.

And they can't prove otherwise. They simply assume, on the basis of their philosophy, that they're right, when the philosophy itself has been demonstrated to be far from infallible.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

so why is it not listening to the large numbers of people that say that the church's positions on abortion, contraception, celibacy and homosexuality are what prevent them from being "good catholics" - look at south america; almost everyone uses contraception there!

None alone is good, but God.

That's why we're called 'practicing' Catholics! But the reality is that people want the law amended to suit themselves, whereas the Church has always stood on principle, founded on Scripture and the Words of Christ. He was not a relativist, and He would not have stood for relativism.

Not I nor anyone else is without sin. Anyone who thinks himself 'a good Catholic' needs to think about it ... a loyal one, maybe ...

There's always the Sacrament of Reconcilliation — we actually make quite a big deal about forgiveness ... but that sacrament is largely ignored these days, another example of symbolic blindness and and the cult of the self which is so prevalent in modern society.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

to be precise: we can't all be right *if we make universalist claims, particularly of superiority and exclusivist salvationism*. that is the major difference between judaism and its two daughter religions.

We're exclusive about the Sacraments, but not about salvation.

The major differences between orthodox Catholicism (Latin and Greek) and post-reformation Christianity is quite profound, and focusses on the Liturgy and the Sacraments ... and I would argue that the history of the Christian denominations marks the history of Revelation becoming subject to increasing limitations according to human reason and philosophical relativism... perhaps I'll do my Masters one that very topic.

Catholic and Orthodox treat Scripture as Absolute, its meaning mediated by tradition, those that follow treat it all as relative and subjective, the truth mediated by the self.

Sola Scriptura is patently a nonsense, as those who championed the doctrine were very quick to burn those who did not agree with their interpretation — so Sola Scriptura means, as long as you read it the way I do.

Sorry Mr B. — called away, a rushed ending to this one ...

Thomas

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The evidence is clear from the debate about the wording of the Creed at the Council of Constantinople in 381, because they regarded the Symbol of Nicea, 325, as inviolate.

you might have to go into some detail about what in the creed supported papal infallibility otherwise i won't be able to tell whether this makes sense or not.

Every Ecumenical Council has always held that what prior councils have stated is infallibly the Rule of Faith.

and are you saying that no ecumenical council has ever disagreed with something a prior ecumenical council has said? that seems a little unlikely to me.

Also the Pope isn't infallible in himself, as history only too clearly demonstrates. The Office is infallible.

yes, but i have trouble seeing the distinction beyond semantics - can you give me an example of where the office is being infallible, where the office-holder isn't?

re "special inspiration from the holy spirit":

Council of Sardica 342:
"If any bishop loses the judgement in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew ... let us honour the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgement write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters ..." .

"If some bishop be deposed by the judgement of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood ... another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgement"

Optatus of Milevus 367
"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head ... the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner... "

Council of Constantinople I 381
"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome".

Jerome 396
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails"

"The church here (in Syria) is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own ... while I keep crying, "He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!" ... Therefore, I implore your blessedness ... tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria."

but all of this is about *primacy*, not about *special inspiration*, isn't it?

No, that was at the 'Robber Council of Ephesus' in 449, when the Emperor in the East tried to take control of the Church, by insisting that Constantinople was the seat of the Empire, not Rome. 130 bishops in attendance, one Dioscorus presided, by command of the emperor, and the emperor denied the vote to any bishop who had voted against his support of Eutyches two years earlier.

küng clearly states that the council he means is chalcedon in 451 - i find it difficult to believe he would get something so basic wrong - how do we work out which of these is right? perhaps you're confusing the occasion, or the events i'm describing? obviously, i'm not playing favourites between the latins and the easterner