Gerard's view on disciplinary safety

Started by St. Columba, April 12, 2018, 12:17:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

St. Columba

Our esteemed poster Gerard espouses the view that disciplines imposed by the Church in a universal manner do not enjoy any protection from being harmful to souls.  I would like to have a calm, rational, discussion on this point, especially with Gerard. 

Gerard's view is one way to deal with the current crisis in the Church.  If I may paraphrase his position: "Unless the Church explicitly proposes a teaching or discipline in an infallible manner, by satisfying the conditions of infallibility the Church has laid down, then there is absolutely no guarantee that the teaching or discipline is safe to follow".  Gerard, please feel free to qualify that statement in any way you see fit.

For the purposes of the discussion, I will take the view of the preconciliar theologians who extend infallible safety --- not infallibility per se --- to encompass universal disciplinary laws.

I would like to begin with a somewhat muscular quote from Van Noort (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church) to start:

Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.

By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. "This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals"; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. "This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune." This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ's doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as "at least erroneous" the hypothesis "that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (Auctorem fidei)


Gerard, can you debunk the two proofs Van Noort gives above?  If the Church can go around making harmful laws for her faithful, that even condone mortal sin say, or invalid sacraments say, then in what sense is the Catholic Church still a loyal guardian or trustworthy teacher of revealed doctrine?

Furthermore, how do you circumvent Auctorem Fidei?  Please note that many theologians (cf Dr Klaus Schatz SJ) consider Auctorem Fidei infallible (see also the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctorem_fidei), but I will admit that I am unsure if each point raised in AF can be considered infallible.  However, insofar as any points in AF are being used to condemn the seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical, that could be sufficient for the points in question to be infallible. 

But either way, the position of Gerard seems to be at least erroneous, according to the fallible or infallible Auctorem Fidei, not to mention the rather unanimous opinion of Catholic divines who would consider safety in universal discipline to be theologically certain, which I do not think a Catholic can dissent from without the surest of reasons.

This is meant to be a gentle discussion, not a debate.  Thank you anyone who wishes to participate.
People don't have ideas...ideas have people.  - Jordan Peterson quoting Carl Jung

St. Columba

I also wish to make the point, which I heard Fr Ripperger corroborate recently in a podcast, that the Church has outlined when she knows she is infallible, but she has not defined all of the possible instances when she is.  In other words, Vatican I, etc, gave sufficient, but not necessary, conditions as to when infallibility is engaged.
People don't have ideas...ideas have people.  - Jordan Peterson quoting Carl Jung

Stubborn

Disciplines, depending on one's opinion of what that even is, changes with cultures and over time - that is just a fact. 

Anything that changes is subject to corruption, not infallibility, therefore, there is no divine guarantee of safety of the Church's discipline.

As for quoting the speculations from 19th/20th century theologians, my advise is to only quote them when what they say agrees with what the Church teaches. Post both, their speculations and actual Church teachings and you will find that most of the time, they disagree - either that or the only place you'll find teachings that agree with them is when you use the NO teachings from V2.

Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
This is wrong. There is no teaching of the Church agreeing with him on this. This is a novelty that many wrongly accept as actual Church teaching - which if it were a Church teaching, then all trads are at least stupid for being trads in the first place.


Even after a long life of sin, if the Christian receives the Sacrament of the dying with the appropriate dispositions, he will go straight to heaven without having to go to purgatory. - Fr. M. Philipon; This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. - St. Thomas Aquinas; It washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin; it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great trust and confidence in the divine mercy. Thus strengthened, he bears the hardships and struggles of his illness more easily and resists the temptation of the devil and the heel of the deceiver more readily; and if it be advantageous to the welfare of his soul, he sometimes regains his bodily health. - Council of Trent

St.Justin

Quote from: Stubborn on April 12, 2018, 12:52:38 PM
Disciplines, depending on one's opinion of what that even is, changes with cultures and over time - that is just a fact. 

Anything that changes is subject to corruption, not infallibility, therefore, there is no divine guarantee of safety of the Church's discipline.

As for quoting the speculations from 19th/20th century theologians, my advise is to only quote them when what they say agrees with what the Church teaches. Post both, their speculations and actual Church teachings and you will find that most of the time, they disagree - either that or the only place you'll find teachings that agree with them is when you use the NO teachings from V2.

Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
This is wrong. There is no teaching of the Church agreeing with him on this. This is a novelty that many wrongly accept as actual Church teaching - which if it were a Church teaching, then all trads are at least stupid for being trads in the first place.
"Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
This is wrong. There is no teaching of the Church agreeing with him on this. This is a novelty that many wrongly accept as actual Church teaching - which if it were a Church teaching, then all trads are at least stupid for being trads in the first place."

I would say that the bolded above should be understood as when the Church makes it explicit that a law is infallible then it would be. This is the same as the way the Church as always viewed what is or is not infallible. The above statement leaves it has if every discipline is automatically infallible and that just can't be so.

St.Justin

Quote from: St. Columba on April 12, 2018, 12:17:32 PM
Our esteemed poster Gerard espouses the view that disciplines imposed by the Church in a universal manner do not enjoy any protection from being harmful to souls.  I would like to have a calm, rational, discussion on this point, especially with Gerard. 

Gerard's view is one way to deal with the current crisis in the Church.  If I may paraphrase his position: "Unless the Church explicitly proposes a teaching or discipline in an infallible manner, by satisfying the conditions of infallibility the Church has laid down, then there is absolutely no guarantee that the teaching or discipline is safe to follow".  Gerard, please feel free to qualify that statement in any way you see fit.

For the purposes of the discussion, I will take the view of the preconciliar theologians who extend infallible safety --- not infallibility per se --- to encompass universal disciplinary laws.

I would like to begin with a somewhat muscular quote from Van Noort (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church) to start:

Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.

By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. "This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals"; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. "This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune." This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ's doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as "at least erroneous" the hypothesis "that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (Auctorem fidei)


Gerard, can you debunk the two proofs Van Noort gives above?  If the Church can go around making harmful laws for her faithful, that even condone mortal sin say, or invalid sacraments say, then in what sense is the Catholic Church still a loyal guardian or trustworthy teacher of revealed doctrine?

Furthermore, how do you circumvent Auctorem Fidei?  Please note that many theologians (cf Dr Klaus Schatz SJ) consider Auctorem Fidei infallible (see also the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctorem_fidei), but I will admit that I am unsure if each point raised in AF can be considered infallible.  However, insofar as any points in AF are being used to condemn the seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical, that could be sufficient for the points in question to be infallible. 

But either way, the position of Gerard seems to be at least erroneous, according to the fallible or infallible Auctorem Fidei, not to mention the rather unanimous opinion of Catholic divines who would consider safety in universal discipline to be theologically certain, which I do not think a Catholic can dissent from without the surest of reasons.

This is meant to be a gentle discussion, not a debate.  Thank you anyone who wishes to participate.

I agree with this:
"Gerard's view is one way to deal with the current crisis in the Church.  If I may paraphrase his position: "Unless the Church explicitly proposes a teaching or discipline in an infallible manner, by satisfying the conditions of infallibility the Church has laid down, then there is absolutely no guarantee that the teaching or discipline is safe to follow".  Gerard, please feel free to qualify that statement in any way you see fit."

We have discussed this "infallibly safe " position that you espouse and I have pointed out to you that i believe you misunderstand the term.

Stubborn

#5
Quote from: St.Justin on April 12, 2018, 01:20:18 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on April 12, 2018, 12:52:38 PM
Disciplines, depending on one's opinion of what that even is, changes with cultures and over time - that is just a fact. 

Anything that changes is subject to corruption, not infallibility, therefore, there is no divine guarantee of safety of the Church's discipline.

As for quoting the speculations from 19th/20th century theologians, my advise is to only quote them when what they say agrees with what the Church teaches. Post both, their speculations and actual Church teachings and you will find that most of the time, they disagree - either that or the only place you'll find teachings that agree with them is when you use the NO teachings from V2.

Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
This is wrong. There is no teaching of the Church agreeing with him on this. This is a novelty that many wrongly accept as actual Church teaching - which if it were a Church teaching, then all trads are at least stupid for being trads in the first place.
"Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
This is wrong. There is no teaching of the Church agreeing with him on this. This is a novelty that many wrongly accept as actual Church teaching - which if it were a Church teaching, then all trads are at least stupid for being trads in the first place."

I would say that the bolded above should be understood as when the Church makes it explicit that a law is infallible then it would be. This is the same as the way the Church as always viewed what is or is not infallible. The above statement leaves it has if every discipline is automatically infallible and that just can't be so.

I agree. What the 19th/20th century theologians taught is that as a blanket, ecclesiastical law is the same as or equal to Divine Law - which is not so.

From The Great Sacrilege:

The Roman pontiff, the successor of Blessed Peter in primacy, has not only the primacy of honor, but also supreme and plenary power of jurisdiction throughout the universal Church, both in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which have to do
with the discipline and order of the Church.

This power is truly episcopal, ordinary and direct, both over all and each of the churches of Christendom, over all and each of the pastors and faithful, and independent of all human authority whatsoever.


There is no suggestion in the above [canon] law that the pope is infallible in the exercise of this plenipotentiary authority. Nor is there anything in Divine Revelation or ecclesiastical law which guarantees that the pope will never make an unwise law, or repeal a wise one; appoint an inept bishop, or a bad one; impose an unjust interdiction, or refuse to impose a necessary one; teach erroneous notions (even rank heresy) and say and do things which lead to mistaken conclusions, or permit his subordinates to do so. Nothing—except Divine Providence, if He so chooses—prevents there being a totally incompetent, or imprudent, or immoral pope.....

....Popes are not infallible in the exercise of their legislative power; they are capable of enacting both foolish and bad laws, of commanding that which is foolish and that which is sinful.   
Even after a long life of sin, if the Christian receives the Sacrament of the dying with the appropriate dispositions, he will go straight to heaven without having to go to purgatory. - Fr. M. Philipon; This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. - St. Thomas Aquinas; It washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin; it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great trust and confidence in the divine mercy. Thus strengthened, he bears the hardships and struggles of his illness more easily and resists the temptation of the devil and the heel of the deceiver more readily; and if it be advantageous to the welfare of his soul, he sometimes regains his bodily health. - Council of Trent

Kreuzritter

Stubborn & co. turn the Church from the ark of salvation into a society which makes suggestions, some good and some evil, which you get to pick and choose whether to follow or not. And with that its authority is annihilated in all but extraordinary cases (what those are, I'm not sure - ex cathedra teaching, maybe, because even ecumenical councils are open to rejection) and its reason for existing as a visible society made redundant because we already have a corpus of dogmatic definitions and all else we need is a priest to perform mass and hear confessions (and even that isn't strictly necessary). And so the Church is reduced to me, my personal understanding of Denzinger, and a priest who's just there to give access to the sacraments (his teaching can't be trusted, of course, by being affirmed by a bishop - it must be judged right or wrong by me) - and claims of "communion with Rome" and "obedience to the Pope" are reduced to empty words signifying absolutely nothing.


Your religion is a ridiculous logical circus of a farce of Catholicism.

Stubborn

Quote from: Kreuzritter on April 13, 2018, 02:33:03 AM
Stubborn & co. turn the Church from the ark of salvation into a society which makes suggestions, some good and some evil, which you get to pick and choose whether to follow or not. And with that its authority is annihilated in all but extraordinary cases (what those are, I'm not sure - ex cathedra teaching, maybe, because even ecumenical councils are open to rejection) and its reason for existing as a visible society made redundant because we already have a corpus of dogmatic definitions and all else we need is a priest to perform mass and hear confessions (and even that isn't strictly necessary). And so the Church is reduced to me, my personal understanding of Denzinger, and a priest who's just there to give access to the sacraments (his teaching can't be trusted, of course, by being affirmed by a bishop - it must be judged right or wrong by me) - and claims of "communion with Rome" and "obedience to the Pope" are reduced to empty words signifying absolutely nothing.


Your religion is a ridiculous logical circus of a farce of Catholicism.

Your post exemplifies the consistent confusion that has run rampant for +50 years between our obligation to remain faithful to truth / doctrine, and the requirement of obedience to authority, aka being subject to popes who are either knowingly or unknowingly, hell bent on destruction of souls and destroying the Church.




Even after a long life of sin, if the Christian receives the Sacrament of the dying with the appropriate dispositions, he will go straight to heaven without having to go to purgatory. - Fr. M. Philipon; This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. - St. Thomas Aquinas; It washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin; it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great trust and confidence in the divine mercy. Thus strengthened, he bears the hardships and struggles of his illness more easily and resists the temptation of the devil and the heel of the deceiver more readily; and if it be advantageous to the welfare of his soul, he sometimes regains his bodily health. - Council of Trent

St. Columba

#8
In response to Stubborn and St Justin...

1. Where are the theologians that agree with your position?  It seems as though theologians did not really delve into this topic until the 19th century, and when they did, they, with material unanimity, held that the Church could not give harm in her disciplines.  Quotes abound, if necessary.  But note well they were making their conclusions based on the very nature of the Church, not some half-baked theological speculations made out of thin air.

2. Both of you have not dealt with Auctorem Fidei, which IS the teaching of the Church, and may very well be infallible as well.  For effect, allow me to contrast:

St. Justin and Stubborn say: "that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism."

Pope Pius VI condemns: "that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism."

You could argue Auctorem Fidei is not infallible, but you would be on thin ice.  You could argue that Auctorem Fidei does not apply, but you would again be on thin ice, as AF is even more stringent that what I am claiming, ie just universal disciplines.

3. Furthermore, the theologians teach, with moral unanimity, in concert with passing references in papal documents (like AF and others), that universal disciplines being safe is theologically certain... and, AFAIK, doubting a theologically certain conclusion is grave matter. 

So, before I adopt the position of St Justin and Stubborn, I will need to see very compelling evidence that their position is true, from either reputable theologians or magisterial documents. 

People don't have ideas...ideas have people.  - Jordan Peterson quoting Carl Jung

St. Columba

Furthermore, Pope Pius IX wrote:

"It would beyond any doubt be blameworthy and entirely contrary to the respect with which the laws of the Church should be received by a senseless aberration to find fault with the discipline which she has established, and which includes the administration of holy things, the regulation of morals, and the laws of the Church and her ministers; or to speak of this discipline as opposed to certain principles of the natural law, or to present it as defective, imperfect, and subject to civil authority." (Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
People don't have ideas...ideas have people.  - Jordan Peterson quoting Carl Jung

St. Columba

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66 (1943):

"Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors."
People don't have ideas...ideas have people.  - Jordan Peterson quoting Carl Jung

St. Columba

Also, according to P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . ."If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
People don't have ideas...ideas have people.  - Jordan Peterson quoting Carl Jung

St. Columba

 Pope Gregory XVI:

"...[they] state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church ... [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion.... While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). ... do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope (Encyclical Quo Graviora, October 4, 1833).
People don't have ideas...ideas have people.  - Jordan Peterson quoting Carl Jung

St. Columba

1909 Catholic Encyclopedia:

[Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.
People don't have ideas...ideas have people.  - Jordan Peterson quoting Carl Jung

Stubborn

Quote from: St. Columba on April 13, 2018, 10:04:33 AM
In response to Stubborn and St Justin...

1. Where are the theologians that agree with your position?

Where is the teaching of the Church that agrees with your position? Your position being, that lay folk are responsible or may determine the status of the pope.
Even after a long life of sin, if the Christian receives the Sacrament of the dying with the appropriate dispositions, he will go straight to heaven without having to go to purgatory. - Fr. M. Philipon; This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. - St. Thomas Aquinas; It washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin; it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great trust and confidence in the divine mercy. Thus strengthened, he bears the hardships and struggles of his illness more easily and resists the temptation of the devil and the heel of the deceiver more readily; and if it be advantageous to the welfare of his soul, he sometimes regains his bodily health. - Council of Trent