Friday, June 14, 2019
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Latin Triumphalism Lives!
In Latin traditionalists and zealous converts to traditionalism.
1P5: I Left Eastern Orthodoxy for the Church Led by Pope Francis, and I Don’t Regret It by Timothy Flanders
Was there unanimity across the Church Fathers as to the nature of papal primacy? No. And the author fails to note that both doctrines mentioned were accepted as doctrines not because a majority of Church Fathers held them (they did not explicitly), but because they were proposed by ecumenical councils and received as being expressions of Tradition.
1P5: I Left Eastern Orthodoxy for the Church Led by Pope Francis, and I Don’t Regret It by Timothy Flanders
Another reason these attacks fail is that the Orthodox do not give their own doctrines the same scrutiny they give Catholics’. It is true that although the saints have taught the Roman primacy, it is by no means clearly expressed across the Fathers. Yet the Orthodox are willing to confess many other doctrines like Iconodulism or the homoousios while explaining away (rightly) any lack of patristic clarity on these points.
Was there unanimity across the Church Fathers as to the nature of papal primacy? No. And the author fails to note that both doctrines mentioned were accepted as doctrines not because a majority of Church Fathers held them (they did not explicitly), but because they were proposed by ecumenical councils and received as being expressions of Tradition.
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
Monday, June 10, 2019
Sunday, June 09, 2019
The Pope as Language Scholar
The prophet is not guaranteed to be an oracle or a prophet, in the sense that every utterance is directly through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Even in the first millenium, there were misunderstandings about Greek, which arguably was the lingua franca of the early Church. Now, when the bishop of Rome no longer speaks Greek fluently, and many of the apostolic Churches do not use it? At least they have been able to avoid misunderstandings so far in the joint statements that have been released.
Why should we understand the successor of St. Peter as having a special competence as to determining the orthodoxy of some definition of faith or statement in Greek or any other language not his own?
What special competence has he received to ensure that his statements are translated properly into the languages used by the other apostolic Churches for communication? He must rely and trust what scholars and representatives of those churches tell him.
Even when everyone was using Greek, Chalcedon would have not been such a big problem if charity was being exercised in all things, with a prayer for a strong dose of patience with one's brothers, and bishops humbly asked for clarification when in doubt. Now when the representatives of the Apostolic Churches speak other languages (I don't think English is a lingua franca for them but I could be wrong)? This is even more true.
Instead of determining that only one formulation is orthodox, might it be that the bishop of Rome is merely expressing a preference for one statement rather than another, which must be coupled with the fixing of terms and their definitions at that time , or at least including some sort of terminological appendix to any statement so that readers in the future know what the word means? And thus the bishop of Rome plays a role as the final arbiter?
In a Church in which many languages can be used, can any statement of faith be free from problems of translation?
Even in the first millenium, there were misunderstandings about Greek, which arguably was the lingua franca of the early Church. Now, when the bishop of Rome no longer speaks Greek fluently, and many of the apostolic Churches do not use it? At least they have been able to avoid misunderstandings so far in the joint statements that have been released.
Why should we understand the successor of St. Peter as having a special competence as to determining the orthodoxy of some definition of faith or statement in Greek or any other language not his own?
What special competence has he received to ensure that his statements are translated properly into the languages used by the other apostolic Churches for communication? He must rely and trust what scholars and representatives of those churches tell him.
Even when everyone was using Greek, Chalcedon would have not been such a big problem if charity was being exercised in all things, with a prayer for a strong dose of patience with one's brothers, and bishops humbly asked for clarification when in doubt. Now when the representatives of the Apostolic Churches speak other languages (I don't think English is a lingua franca for them but I could be wrong)? This is even more true.
Instead of determining that only one formulation is orthodox, might it be that the bishop of Rome is merely expressing a preference for one statement rather than another, which must be coupled with the fixing of terms and their definitions at that time , or at least including some sort of terminological appendix to any statement so that readers in the future know what the word means? And thus the bishop of Rome plays a role as the final arbiter?
In a Church in which many languages can be used, can any statement of faith be free from problems of translation?
Saturday, June 08, 2019
Who Needs the CDF?
Sandro Magister: “His Most Egregiously Ambiguous Statement.” A Theologian of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Flunks the Pope
There is no counting, by now, the times in which Pope Francis has refused to ask for or accept the view of the congregation whose task it is to ensure compliance with dogma.
If he had done this with, for example, “Amoris Laetitia,” that exhortation on marriage and divorce would have come out written in a much less imprident manner, without eliciting those “dubia” - endorsed and made public by four cardinals - to which Francis then refused to respond, also imposing silence on the congregation led at the time by Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)