What Can Change and What Can't

Published on by D. G. Hart

Since infallibility has become a frequent topic of recent comments here, a couple of pieces from elsewhere may complicate the infallibility-means-superior meme of Roman Catholic apologists. It turns out that you can find as many opinions about what the church teaches (and here discipline merges with doctrine, a no-no I thought) as Carter has pills.

First, an optimistic piece from George Weigel about Pope Francis as a conservative:

Popes, in other words, are not authoritarian figures, who teach what they will and as they will. The pope is the guardian of an authoritative tradition, of which he is the servant, not the master. Pope Francis knows this as well as anyone, as he has emphasized by repeating that he is a “son of the Church” who believes and teaches what the Church believes and teaches.

Thus the notion that this pontificate is going to change Catholic teaching on the morality of homosexual acts, or on the effects of divorce-and-remarriage on one’s communion with the Church, is a delusion, although the Church can surely develop its pastoral approach to homosexuals and the divorced. As for the environment and the poor, Catholic social doctrine has long taught that we are stewards of creation and that the least of the Lord’s brethren have a moral claim on our solidarity and our charity; the social doctrine leaves open to debate the specific, practical means by which people of good will, and governments, exercise that stewardship, and that solidarity and charity.

And “the role of women in the Church”? No doubt various Church structures would benefit by drawing upon a wider range of talent (irrespective of gender) than the talent-pool from which Church leaders typically emerge. Still, in an interview with La Stampa before Christmas, Pope Francis made it clear that identifying leadership in the Church with ordination is both a form of clericalism and another way of instrumentalizing Catholic women.

So the church is not going to change, but I didn’t see anything about infallibility or the bodily assumption of Mary not changing. Instead, it looks like morality has an aura of infallibility about it. That makes sense since morality comes from God. But if the papacy hasn’t declared the moral law to be infallible, how would we know that morality is unchanging?

And then there is the back-and-forth among Roman Catholics about what the church teaches on Islam:

Consider an online debate that appeared this summer in Catholic Answers Forum about Cardinal Dolan’s visit to a mosque in New York. The debate centered around the Cardinal’s statement “You love God, we love God, and he is the same God”—a statement, in short, which seemed to echo the Catholic Catechism. The most interesting aspect of the month-long thread was that those who argued that Allah is the same God that Christians worship relied almost exclusively on arguments from authority. Here is a sample:

“It is dogma that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God.”

“He [Cardinal Dolan] has the grace of Teaching Authority. Unless you are a bishop, you do not.”

“You are discrediting Vatican II.”

“One either accepts Her teaching authority, or one does not.”

“This is not up for grabs.”

After plowing through dozens of similar propositions, along with numerous citations of the relevant passage in the Catechism, it was difficult for me to avoid the conclusion that forum participants were relying on the argument from authority because it was the only argument they had.

The trouble with the argument from authority in regard to Islam is fourfold. First, the Church has very little to say about Islam. In fact, the brief statements from the Second Vatican Council make no reference to Islam, Muhammad, or the Koran but only refer to “Muslims.” The same is true of paragraph 841 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which simply repeats the two sentences from Lumen Gentium. The second problem has to do with interpretation. For example, Lumen Gentium states that Muslims “profess to hold the faith of Abraham” but does not assert that they actually do hold the same faith as Abraham. Likewise, Nostra Aetate states that Muslims “revere Him [Jesus] as a prophet,” but does not grapple with the significant differences between the Jesus of the Koran and the Jesus of the Gospels—differences that extend well beyond the fact that the Koran does not acknowledge Jesus as God.

The third problem with the argument from authority as it touches on Islam is that there appears to be some uncertainty about whether Nostra Aetate was meant to be a dogmatic statement. . . .

The fourth problem with the argument from authority is that those who fall back on it often ignore the harsh assessments of Islam offered by earlier Church authorities. For example:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basil, 1434: “…there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic Faith.”

Pope Callixtus III, 1455: “I vow to…exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East.”

Pope Pius II, papal bull, 1459: “…the false prophet Mahomet”

. . . The harsh language of earlier Church authorities can be excused on the grounds that Islam was often at war with Christianity. The more conciliatory language of Vatican II can be better understood if we realize that Islam’s aggression against Christianity seemed entirely a thing of the past at that time. But it can be argued that the irenic statements of Vatican II have helped to create a climate of opinion among Catholics that has left them unprepared for the present state of affairs vis-à-vis Islam. And the present state of affairs seems to herald a resumption of the centuries old Islamic hostility toward Christians.

I don’t know how Jason and the Callers come down on the church’s teaching on Islam, but the more I see, the more it looks like the claims made on behalf of infallibility are overblown given the way that ordinary Roman Catholics can (and have to) splice and dice the works of their bishops. At the very least, we see here more evidence that nothing and everything changed at Vatican II.

22 thoughts on “What Can Change and What Can't”

  1. Darryl,

    “But if the papacy hasn’t declared the moral law to be infallible, how would we know that morality is unchanging? ”

    Again you err by thinking infallibility only applies to papal statements. Did a pope define “Christ was bodily resurrected”? No, but of course it’s infallible. Did a pope define “thou shalt not kill” infallible? No. Of course it is infallible though. How exactly that principle (or all the other moral principles in God’s infallible law) applies can be a question because ethics is not a black and white affair in concrete situations (hence all the intricate discussions in issues of moral theology).

    “but the more I see, the more it looks like the claims made on behalf of infallibility are overblown given the way that ordinary Roman Catholics can (and have to) splice and dice the works of their bishops.”

    It’s only overblown if there’s not a single example of infallible teaching. There is, and we’ve discussed some of them. It’s only overblown if you think infallibility necessitates the RomeBot2000 network and no development. Which it doesn’t.

    Like

  2. Well, you know, Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia.

    I think it’s funny that Crisis Magazine is treating the denizens of the “Catholic Answers Forum” as if they really know something.

    Like

  5. Sorry, can’t resist the urge

    In the case of a deacon:

    The office of deacon is based upon the solicitude and love of Christ for his own people. So tender is our Lord’s interest in their temporal needs that he considers what is done unto one of the least of his brethren as done unto him. For he will say to those who have ministered to his little ones: “I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”

    In the beginning the apostles themselves ministered to the poor, but subsequently, in order that they might be able to devote themselves wholly to prayer and the ministry of the Word, they committed that responsibility to others, having directed the people to choose men of good report, full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom. Since the days of the apostles the church has recognized the care of the poor as a distinct ministry of the church committed to deacons.

    The duties of deacons consist of encouraging members of the church to provide for those who are in want, seeking to prevent poverty, making discreet and cheerful distribution to the needy, praying with the distressed and reminding them of the consolations of Holy Scripture.

    If they are to fill worthily so sacred an office, deacons must adorn sound doctrine by holy living, setting an example of godliness in all their relations with men. Let them walk with exemplary piety and diligently discharge the obligations of their office; and “when the chief shepherd shall be manifested,” they “shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.”

    b. He shall then propose to the candidate the following questions:

    (1) Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

    Anyway, I knew you were trouble (trouble trouble trouble) when you walked iiiinnnn…

    Happy Birthday, by the way. Yo.

    Like

  6. Cletus van (Damned?),

    Ok, I read your combox once through. Maybe you and Darryl are further along this road of discussion. But give me your worst. Infallibility ain’t a slam dunk. I grabbed this off my father in law’s shelf years ago, it’s sitting about 40 feet away from me.

    Would you like to dig? Shall I start quoting it? Where do we go from here? Are you here just to defend your church? Or do you want to see how far this rabbit hole goes, girlfriend?

    Like

  7. Instead, it looks like morality has an aura of infallibility about it. That makes sense since morality comes from God.

    True, but this thought provoking post and subsequent combox exchange makes me want to read more. I’ll be in my cave..

    Like

  8. James van Clet, so you admit that we can have infallible doctrine without the pope:

    Again you err by thinking infallibility only applies to papal statements. Did a pope define “Christ was bodily resurrected”? No, but of course it’s infallible. Did a pope define “thou shalt not kill” infallible? No. Of course it is infallible though. How exactly that principle (or all the other moral principles in God’s infallible law) applies can be a question because ethics is not a black and white affair in concrete situations (hence all the intricate discussions in issues of moral theology).

    So how exactly can you continue to claim that Protestantism doesn’t have what Roman Catholicism has? If we all have infallible doctrines and morals without the pope, how is it you go gooey over papal infallibility?

    Like

  9. You reading, Clete van Winkle? I know you are. If you want to talk to top dawg, here’s the thread. If you want to stop wasting your time here, go to your church, do your thing, and live life to the fullest, and stop trolling this illustrious blog. Warning: I work for a living, so any of my responses can take up to a week. Infallibility is where we are at, with you. That, and wondring if James Young is really your real name. Young gun, you.

    I call bull shit on your whole act. What say you, winky?

    Like

  11. D. G. Hart
    Posted January 16, 2014 at 7:25 pm | Permalink
    James van dumb, so what makes the moral law infallible?

    Happy Birthday, Mr. Cletus van dumb, toooooo uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.

    Although I don’t partake of their chalices, I actually have Rasta friends, real rastas, mon.

    Rastafarians don’t mock, Darryl, such an interesting contrast. Every time I think I have learned all your island here has to teach, I learn more. Plus their music is better.

    Like

  12. So what we have seen above is that the Roman Catholic Church has taught, using its claimed divine teaching authority, which is to be trusted as a final arbiter of theological truth, both that the modern notion of religious freedom is wrong and wicked and that it is right and righteous. As these cannot both be true, we must consider the church’s claim to have an ultimately-reliable (i.e. infallible) teaching authority to be falsified.

    A LOOK AT A RESPONSE FROM ROMAN CATHOLIC WRITER BRYAN CROSS

    In this final section, I would like to briefly look at some arguments attempting to show that the church has not contradicted itself in its teaching on religious freedom. Particularly, I want to look at a recent article by Bryan Cross posted at the Called to Communion website, a Roman Catholic website dedicated to fostering dialogue between Roman Catholics and Reformed Christians. Let’s look at some of Bryan’s attempts at resolution:

    http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2014/02/religious-freedom-and-fallibility-of_22.html

    Like

  16. Erik, does this fit your bill if what you requested of me above? (from combox of M. Hausam’s blog)

    explorerMarch 3, 2014 at 4:28 AM
    Hi Mark,
    Have you seen this website and heard any of their debates?

    http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

    This website claims to be the most active website online exposing the post-Vatican II church. Using their arguments at Catholic Answers can get you banned.

    Their debates are very useful at showing the chaotic nature of the modern post-Vatican II church and no one has dared to defend the infallibility of Vatican II against them in debate.

    Many of the debates they have are against other traditionalist catholics who hold either Vatican II is not infallible or who hold that recent Popes are at least material (but not formal) heretics.

    Like

  19. So Mark is getting a lot of words in at CtC.

    Someone posted that on Marks sight, to show Catholics breaking ranks. Those Catholics know Vat2 isa problem for the CtC nnarrative. They look like SSPXers to me. But RCism is so strange, I don’t have a clue, really. But Darryl blogs a lot on it, and I read this blog.

    No biggee.

    Like

  20. Infallibility, for the record, is sticky stuff:

    Andrew Buckingham said,
    July 25, 2012 at 9:08 pm

    I suppose from what I’ve read, the problem in the 1920′s was that the liberal was rejecting Historic Christianity. I think that’s a harsher charge than simply claiming said liberal is suspicious.

    As for the Catholic, I thought the issue Luther uncovered was that the Pope wasn’t infallible.

    Infallible is a word Protestants like, especially in connection with Scripture. It’s probably because that Augustinian monk needed something infallbile, since the Pope was no longer.

    Having been raised Protestant, and I still accept the label given me since I was born, my personal devotional time in Scripture has only stregthened my conviction about Scripture, and when I read the words of WCF 1, they resonated.

    I wonder if Catholic tradition has the same affect for said Catholics? Meaning, does the Catholic, because of the high regard for tradition, get the same sense of God’s presence when reading, say, the Catholic Catechism, as I get when I read Psalm 139:23-24? Obviously there is overlap. I just wonder what the relationship between the Catholic and his tradition looks like, in real life…

    Who knows. We’ll ask Mr. Luther himself when we see him.

    See, Bryan Cross? I can trace my own thought out here, as well, and link to myself. This stuff isn’t hard. It takes a smart phone and some resolve (not the cleaner).

    Adios muchachos.

    Like

  21. Doctrines may not change and practices may, but what about meanings of words? Sean Michael Winters on how change always happens:

    Most of the bishops gathered in Rome for the Synod on the Family do not serve in the diocese for which they were first ordained a bishop. None of the eight American delegates serve in the diocese for which they were first ordained. So, for example, when Cardinal Daniel DiNardo was installed as the coadjutor Bishop of Galveston-Houston in 2004, the nuncio read a papal bull appointing him as the new coadjutor bishop and releasing him from his bonds to the diocese of Sioux City where he had previously served as bishop. In the early Church, bishops were not translated from one diocese to another. The innovation came about as the Church grew, and some larger dioceses needed more seasoned leadership when a vacancy occurred. And while many sermons and much theology analogizes that a bishop is wedded to his diocese, the Power of the Keys permitted the pope to remove prior bonds when re-assigning a bishop from one diocese to another.
    In 2013, when it became clear that Pope Francis intended significant reforms of the Church, I wrote an article advocating for a return to the ancient practice of not translating bishops from one diocese to another. It seemed to me that this would be one way to squeeze a lot of the careerism out of the Church. A man being named the bishop of Norwich, Connecticut, to cite my home diocese, would know that he would be wedded to the people there for all of his life, his decisions would be taken with a view towards having to live with those decisions, not whether the decision would make his resume for a larger and more important diocese more spiffy. Yes, the nuncio and the Congregation for bishops would have to undertake more due diligence in selecting candidates for large, complex dioceses, and there would be a risk that the wrong man would be selected. Still, it seemed to me then, and seems to me now, that the risks were outweighed by the value on restricting the careerism. There could be exceptions, but they would have to be rare, and there could be no exceptions for the first five or ten years, to really affect the kind of change I thought would be beneficial.

    I sent the article I had penned to some friends who happen to be bishops and one of them replied, “Yes, ideally, your proposal would be the norm. But, why would we deny ourselves the best candidate for a given post simply because he happens to be a bishop somewhere else? The good of the Church often requires the current practice.” I do not doubt what my learned and holy friend said.

    And a lot of times it works to the pope’s advantage:

    Stephen VI is chiefly remembered in connection with his conduct towards the remains of Pope Formosus, his last predecessor but one. The rotting corpse of Formosus was exhumed and put on trial in the so-called Cadaver Synod (or Synodus Horrenda) in January 897. Pressure from the Spoleto contingent and Stephen’s fury with his predecessor probably precipitated this extraordinary event.[2] With the corpse propped up on a throne, a deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff. During the trial, Formosus’s corpse was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed and for receiving the pontificate while he was the bishop of Porto, among other revived charges that had been levelled against him in the strife during the pontificate of John VIII. The corpse was found guilty, stripped of its sacred vestments, deprived of three fingers of its right hand (the blessing fingers), clad in the garb of a layman, and quickly buried; it was then re-exhumed and thrown in the Tiber. All ordinations performed by Formosus were annulled.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.