1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZThat's not true, 50% of theological debate seems to be about exactly that. . .the lack of facts.
What you know is irrelevant in a debate. If you can't provide the evidence then it doesn't matter.
How far would you get in a court of law if when prosecuting you didn't present evidence but instead just told the jury that "everyone knows he did it."?
I actually think that anyone suggesting that someone who works in the Vatican isn't a Catholic, is embarrassing themselves. . .do i really need to prove that ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Demographics
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vat_swissGuard.jpg
That's not true, 50% of theological debate seems to be about exactly that. . .the lack of facts.
I actually think that anyone suggesting that someone who works in the Vatican isn't a Catholic, is embarrassing themselves. . .do i really need to prove that ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Demographics
Why does the Pope need a chief spearman to guard his outhouse?
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image😕wiss_Guard.jpg
That's not true, 50% of theological debate seems to be about exactly that. . .the lack of facts.
I actually think that anyone suggesting that someone who works in the Vatican isn't a Catholic, is embarrassing themselves. . .do i really need to prove that ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Demographics
Is that Prince? What a goofy costume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image[colon capital S]wiss_Guard.jpg
Originally posted by vistesdI don't know what you mean by the term "theologize" here. If you're referring to private theological speculation then everyone can, and does, "theologize".
Let me see if I understand this (I’m not being sarcastic; and if I’m right, you already know the strength of my disagreement, so there won’t be much else for me to say)—
(1) Only qualified theologians should theologize—and then cautiously.
(2) The conclusions (even the questions?) of such theologians need to be approved by the Church (i.e., Pope and ...[text shortened]... reedom-from-authority versus freedom-within-authority, so we don’t really need to revisit that.)
If you're referring to public theological discourse, then that act brings with it a measure of responsibility. For instance, a person making a public theological statement has the responsibility of not implying (explicitly or implicitly) that what is, in fact, his personal theory is the teaching of the Church or is consistent with the teaching of the Church when it is not. Such an action would be irresponsible at best and fraudulent at worst.
Church teaching provides "guardrails" against error in theological speculation and teaching. Everyone who speculates (privately or publicly) on theological matters has a responsibility to investigate Church teaching on the matter. If there are points of disagreement, then the person is invited to study closer why the Church teaches what it teaches and that, hopefully, will lead the person to bring his speculations in line with Church teaching. If that cannot be done then, yes, the person is ultimately asked to humbly submit to the teaching authority of the Church.
So, to answer your questions:
(1) Not at all. Some of the greatest Saints and Doctors of the Church never had any formal theological training at all.
(2) There is a canonical process (i.e. the imprimatur) for obtaining such formal approval.
(3) See what I've written above, plus (1).
Originally posted by PalynkaI think you're introducing something here (i.e. the problem of evil) that Fr. Coyne neither refers nor alludes to in his reasoning. There are a number of coherent (even if it is a little hard for us with our limited powers of reason and knowledge to digest) explanations for the problem that do not in any way diminish the classical notion of God's omnipotence.
I think it does, because it relates with God's interaction with the world and therefore it also relates with the justifications for evil and God's responsibility in it.
I believe he tried to disentagle God's creation with God's responsibility of every detail that happens in His creation.
Originally posted by PalynkaWhich ones? As I said earlier, I've not seen anything in his article that justifies his claim that God's omnipotence and omniscience (in the scholastic sense) need to be dumped.
Not erroneously but maybe not very precisely. He refuted some implications that are assigned to the full use of such "powers".
Originally posted by vistesdI do. Read my previous post -- every Catholic (theologian or plumber) is invited to learn more about Church teachings and the reasoning behind them to the best of their ability.
But I don’t think that by ceding authority, one can abrogate one’s own responsibility. (LH I think agrees on that.)
Originally posted by vistesdBingo. That would just be moral relativism.
I would guess that our friend’s response would be something along the lines of: “But that doesn’t mean that such popularly-driven changes represent moral truth.” 🙂
Besides, the Catholic Church does have a history of not caving in to popular ideas on core doctrinal issues.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNo one stops the astronomers of the Vatican observatory from reporting their observations or conclusions on astronomical matters. Once they move beyond the domain of questions that science can resolve, then their credibility is already in question.
I'm afraid you can't have the best of both worlds.
A scientist can have no credibility if he is not free to report on what he observes or concludes based on his observations.
A scientist can have no credibility if his conclusions are artificially constrained by dogma.
As a certain professor of the philosophy of science pointed out to me, science cannot even tell you whether matter really exists -- much less deal with complex philosophical and theological issues.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf that cannot be done then, yes, the person is ultimately asked to humbly submit to the teaching authority of the Church.
I don't know what you mean by the term "theologize" here. If you're referring to private theological speculation then everyone can, and does, "theologize".
If you're referring to public theological discourse, then that act brings with it a measure of responsibility. For instance, a person making a public theological statement has the responsibility ...[text shortened]... /i]) for obtaining such formal approval.
(3) See what I've written above, plus (1).
Thank you for the thoughtful answer. With regard to the above point—
Publicly, or also privately, on one’s own mind? Publicly, I can see a person making such a choice (Teilhard de Chardin ultimately did, I believe). But in one’s own mind, one cannot believe what one cannot honestly believe. Nor do I think that one can fairly be asked to simply stop the inquiry in one’s own mind—in fact, I’m not sure it can be done without some level of self-deceit). I may be coming too much from my old Protestant conditioning here, but many Protestants would say that if one dies with “wrong beliefs,” no matter how honestly held, one is at least in danger of hell—depending on the importance of the particular doctrinal beliefs. (This what I call the “think right and be saved, think wrong and be condemned” principle.)
It is my mind that I cannot submit in the way you are speaking of. (In the “big tent” of Anglicanism (US Episcopal), I really wasn’t asked to—since the “three pillars” of faith in that church are scripture, tradition and reason/freedom of conscience.) Now, you know me well enough to know that I am not averse to having my thinking and beliefs tested—and strive to test them myself (the courage to challenge one’s own convictions, as well as to hold them, as I’ve put it before). So, it is that very process of inquiry, testing, revisiting and self-testing that I cannot relinquish. Is that what the Church asks—or again, am I still too stuck in a more Protestant paradigm?
Originally posted by lucifershammerI believe the binomial responsibility/randomness are connected in his reasoning, especially regarding his considerations between an Authoritarian God and a Paternal one.
I think you're introducing something here (i.e. the problem of evil) that Fr. Coyne neither refers nor alludes to in his reasoning. There are a number of coherent (even if it is a little hard for us with our limited powers of reason and knowledge to digest) explanations for the problem that do not in any way diminish the classical notion of God's omnipotence.
I see your point in that it is not explicit, but his reasoning seems more coherent if I take this view in consideration.