Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Don't you think the Church should revise its documents so that they convey a uniform meaning to all intelligent people interested in their contents? You and Nemesio are both reasonable people, so it baffles me that you can have d ...[text shortened]... ys about salvation, arguably the most crucial aspect of the faith.
First, we haven't yet established which passages/documents were being referred to by either of us when we arrived at our respective positions. Hence, it is possible (or not! 🙂 ) that one of us is making an unreasonable interpretation of what is an otherwise unambiguous passage.
Second, it isn't clear that Nemesio and myself actually have fundamentally different interpretations. It is possible that what Nemesio calls the "likelihood" of salvation is equivalent (!) to my view when one factors in the promise of grace. The "clean slate" argument is a case in point.
Finally, no matter how intelligent a person is, it is extremely unlikely he will understand much of a PhD thesis in string theory unless he has the necessary mathematical/physics background. Theology, like any other academic discipline, requires a certain level of expertise and knowledge. You can only "take out the jargon" so much. Many documents being referred to (like papal encyclicals) are actually letters from the Pope to the Bishops, both of whom would be expected to possess a reasonably high level of theological expertise.
EDIT: And, yes, the Church does publish new documents from time to time that is intended to convey doctrine in a reasonably simple manner to a modern audience. The CCC would be one example. I'd think the Vatican II documents would be another.