It is appreciated, and reciprocal from me.
Posted on 09/20/2005 10:26:43 AM PDT by NYer
Do you always answer for gbcdoj?
LOL lil' anxious, gerard?
Not at all. Are you?
I get sent stuff in freepmail about angelqueen.
Oooh..
Care to share; dare to share? :)
I've got nothing to hide, I'm an open book with my posts, but by all means post the freepmail you've gotten.
INSTRUCTION ON THE ECCLESIAL VOCATION OF THE THEOLOGIAN
THE MAGISTERIUM AND THEOLOGY
A. Collaborative Relations
21. The living Magisterium of the Church and theology, while having different gifts and functions, ultimately have the same goal: preserving the People of God in the truth which sets free and thereby making them "a light to the nations". This service to the ecclesial community brings the theologian and the Magisterium into a reciprocal relationship. The latter authentically teaches the doctrine of the Apostles. And, benefiting from the work of theologians, it refutes objections to and distortions of the faith and promotes, with the authority received from Jesus Christ, new and deeper comprehension, clarification, and application of revealed doctrine. Theology, for its part, gains, by way of reflection, an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God found in the Scripture and handed on faithfully by the Church's living Tradition under the guidance of the Magisterium. Theology strives to clarify the teaching of Revelation with regard to reason and gives it finally an organic and systematic form.(20)
22. Collaboration between the theologian and the Magisterium occurs in a special way when the theologian receives the canonical mission or the mandate to teach. In a certain sense, such collaboration becomes a participation in the work of the Magisterium, linked, as it then is, by a juridic bond. The theologian's code of conduct, which obviously has its origin in the service of the Word of God, is here reinforced by the commitment the theologian assumes in accepting his office, making the profession of faith, and taking the oath of fidelity.(21)
From this moment on, the theologian is officially charged with the task of presenting and illustrating the doctrine of the faith in its integrity and with full accuracy.
23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.
When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)
When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.
24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.
The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.
(24) When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.
25. Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.
26. In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.
27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.
28. The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.
Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.
29. In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.
30. If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.
In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.
I get freepmail from some who lurk there for kicks and just to see how sick that joint really is so maybe I ought to post in here some of the stuff I get in freepmail so the lurkers here can understand what it is you and gerard p. like about angelqueen and what it is that motivates and obsesses the schism. As silence is agreement some of the sick angelquen stuff ought be intructive about the real ideas motivating you and gerard p. no?
You wrote "freepmail from some [ ]who lurk there. What did you intend to write? "stooges?" By all means man, do it! I for one can't wait to kick your tail all over the place on this. Though I will feel a little sorry for you since I'll simply knock you six ways to Sunday instead of taking it easy on you like I've done so far. Nah, you've asked for it. You've only got two tricks. Misrepresent the other side and guilt by association. Other than that it won't be much but appetizers.
I apologize Hermann, my last reply to you was unduly harsh. I was simply reacting to gbcdoj's sudden lack of enthusiasm for the dialogue with his history of knowing some of the most obscure references imaginable and usually of dubious relation to the subject matter.
But maybe I can ask you and get an answer. Is there any legitimate reason for resisting a Pontiff in the history of the Church that you'd be willing to cite?
Don't worry, son. I've read of Exorcisms that were like this. Christ's truth will stop the mad cackling eventually.
* OK
*Keep defending Luther and Lefebvre contra the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils and Authority.
Now THAT's funny! You just read what you want to read into anything. As you copy and paste someone else's bad job of quoting anything they can find that links Luther to LeFebvre. (as if you couldn't match it up with similar statement's from Popes. Hey! Now there's an idea! ) But non-thinkers just believe the name "Luther" or "Hitler" or "Schism" is somehow what passes for a rational argument.
* LOL Poor attempt at diversion.
Care to try and actually defend Luther's and Lefebvre's statements or will you continue the same lame diversionary tactics?
When will you take the time to defend your hero Lefevbre?
Ya got his statements right here. His position is the same as Luther's position, his position is the same as yours. So, what about it? It should be easy for you
I am happy to stipulate I am a dim bulb, an idiot, an ignormaus, insane, possessed, whatever. I couldn't care less what y'all think of me.
But don't you at least have the couarge to defend your hero in public? I mean come on, he is another Athanasius, remember?
Don't let Lefebvre's words speak for themselves. At least TRY and explain them away
*Ut, oh...gerard p. is a real tough guy :)
gonna kick my tail...feels sorry for me...up to now been taking it easy on me....
LOL I swear I am reading an old script from a Freddie Blase wrestling rant - minus the charm :)
If you were "bornacatholic' then you would know what the heck the Church has been going through and UNDERSTAND the wave of traditionalist who pray for the Pope and HOLD unto all the Traditions like ST. Paul tells us in the HOLY BIBLE,not like dumb sheep fall into the pit...COME ON!
Can't see why a bornacatholic is soooo apposed to the Latin Mass ,the groups that hold to it-
You were the only one to bring up AQ on this thread, and although you made many calumnious accusations I ignored them. I only mentioned AQ in response to you, after you had referred to it several times.
It's not healthy physically or spiritually to always be so angry. If reading AQ makes you so angry stop reading it and bringing it up. If you're unable to do so then for goodness sake get help.
Hi Hermann - I agree with this explanation of "manifested", although why the term would need an explanation is a little beyond me.
gbcdoj's sudden lack of enthusiasm for the dialogue
I was actually planning on replying to you tomorrow, but Hermann's response suffices (although why the need for a definition of "manifested"? Even without resorting to technical definitions, it would seem that my meaning was quite clear).
I have a quote from Yves Congar (not Ratzinger)"It cannot be denied that the affirmation of religious liberty by Vatican II says materially something other than what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even just about the opposite of propositions 16, 17 and 19 of this document."
This quote is mutilated (not blaming you). I just read recently Fr. Congar's Challenge to the Church: the Case of Archbishop Lefebvre (quite an interesting read), and 16, 17, and 19 are not the propositions of the Syllabus he lists (from memory, I think he says 15 and 77-79). He goes on to argue that DH is a logical outgrowth of the teaching of Pius XI and Pius XII - of course this doesn't really solve the problem, but just pushes the supposed contradiction back.
In any case, there is no actual contradiction between QC and DH. And I doubt very much that Cardinal Ratzinger said that there was.
Thanks for your reply.
Michael Davies in his "Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebve" quotes Fr. Congar:
"It cannot be denied that a text like this does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-9 of the document."
You were right about the propositions :-)
Do you own Fr. Congar's book? Is it possible that the quote used in Fr. Kramer's book is how it appeared in French? It still wouldn't help explain the propositions goof up, though...
Do you own Fr. Congar's book?
No, I read it at a library.
Is it possible that the quote used in Fr. Kramer's book is how it appeared in French? It still wouldn't help explain the propositions goof up, though...
It's probably just an editing mistake on Fr. Kramer's part. Nothing serious but I thought I'd just make it clear which numbers of the Syllabus Fr. Congar actually mentioned. I don't think even the wildest liberal could claim that DH teaches, for instance, that "Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ" (no. 17).
I apologize for all my nasty or unkind or intentionally-provoking, cage-rattling, chain-pulling or ranting statements I have made. Not one of them were justified.
As a Christian I must presume y'all are acting with good intent.
My apologies. Please ping those who might have the same sympathy towards the sspx as you do as I have, no doubt, said something unkind or nasty to them and I would like to apologize to them also but I can't remember all of their s/n's.
Thank you.
Dominus vobiscum.
I hope one day you shall see, I pray for you-God guide you always...Hail Mary
I am an adult convert to Catholicism after Vatican II, so vernacular masses are all I know.
I am not following the theology or even the points under contention on either side in this dispute.
But I can say, given the err, sexual scandals in the US recently, that this Bishop has a singularly unfortunate name.
Prayers that God's will be done...on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.