Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: The Theologians  (Read 4319 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Theologians
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2017, 12:07:14 PM »
I think it's significant what Fr. Fenton writes in his article on the weight of the theological manuals:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Manuals.htm


"What seems to displease Father Baum is the fact that the unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians in any area relating to faith or morals is the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. The manuals, like those to which we have referred, are books actually used in the instruction of candidates for the priesthood. They are written by men who actually teach in the Church's own approved schools, under the direction of the Catholic hierarchy, and ultimately, through the activity of the Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, under the direction of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. The common or morally unanimous teaching of the manuals in this field is definitely a part of Catholic doctrine.
It is quite obvious that the individual opinions of individual authors do not constitute Catholic doctrine, and could not be set forth as such. But there is a fund of common teaching (like that which tells us that there are truths which the Church proposes to us as revealed by God, and which are not contained in any way within the inspired books of Holy Scripture), which is the unanimous doctrine of the manuals, and which is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians has always been recognized as a norm of Catholic doctrine. It is unfortunate that today there should be some attempt to mislead people into imagining that it has ceased to be such a norm in the twentieth century."

Of course YOU think it's "significant" ... because you imagine that it backs your support of BoD.  Yeah, that's what Bellarmine thought too about the Augustinian problem cited above (did you even bother reading it?).  It's also significant that this "Father Baum" also disagrees with Fenton's hyperbole.  Theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens and enjoy only the same infallibility as the Ecclesia Credens.  Indeed the Ecclesia Credens cannot defect when it comes to dogmatic truth, but there's nothing to prevent an erroneous opinion from becoming widespread.

So, do you accept the teachings of Vatican II?  In that case, it was the bishops of the world -- who actually ARE the Ecclesia Docens -- who taught Vatican II to the Church.    So those things taught by the Ecclesia Docens to the Church in Ecuмenical Council can be rejected by you as not being part of Catholic doctrine while the theology manuals must be accepted as such?

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Theologians
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2017, 12:11:30 PM »
I think it's significant what Fr. Fenton writes in his article on the weight of the theological manuals:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Manuals.htm


"The unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians has always been recognized as a norm of Catholic doctrine."

So the non-scholastic theologians don't count?  Their authority comes from scholasticism?


Re: The Theologians
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2017, 01:27:25 PM »
That’s an issue I am thinking about, because Clearly there is an implied rift between the Fathers ending with St. Bernard and the Scholastics Beginning with Hugh and Richard of St. Victor. If this were consistent, then we would have to say that at some point the scholastics themselves seem to be the radical freethinking innovators in their deviations from St. Augustine and the Augustinian fathers.

Interestingly enough Cardinal Ratzinger seemed to suggest this when he wrote an entire docuмent on the duties of the Theologian and says the consensus of bishops are to be understood in a “diachronic” (“Throughout Time”) sense and not merely “Synchronic” (Simultaneous at a given moment). This really puts tradition back in the driver seat. BUT then how are we to understand the claim that a unanimous consensus of the scholastics is at least infallibly safe and certain? I assume it would be more nuanced than flat out vulgar rejection.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Theologians
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2017, 03:56:15 PM »
That’s an issue I am thinking about, because Clearly there is an implied rift between the Fathers ending with St. Bernard and the Scholastics Beginning with Hugh and Richard of St. Victor. If this were consistent, then we would have to say that at some point the scholastics themselves seem to be the radical freethinking innovators in their deviations from St. Augustine and the Augustinian fathers.

Interestingly enough Cardinal Ratzinger seemed to suggest this when he wrote an entire docuмent on the duties of the Theologian and says the consensus of bishops are to be understood in a “diachronic” (“Throughout Time”) sense and not merely “Synchronic” (Simultaneous at a given moment). This really puts tradition back in the driver seat. BUT then how are we to understand the claim that a unanimous consensus of the scholastics is at least infallibly safe and certain? I assume it would be more nuanced than flat out vulgar rejection.

I'll answer more later, but theological "safety" is not the same as some lower degree of certainty.  Safety simply means that one would not do harm to their faith by following a unanimous opinion of theirs.  And I agree that BoD is not INTRINSICALLY harmful to the faith.  Now ... its modern-day application with the implicit BoD and even implicit faith, well that's another thing altogether.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Theologians
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2017, 05:17:06 PM »
A contradiction between the view of St. Augustine as to the fate of unbaptized infants and that of St. Thomas and those who asserted a Limbo of "natural happiness" seems to depend on the correction translation of the Council of Constance Canon 3.

No, that's simply not true.  Bellarmine and the scholastics were all keenly aware of the contradiction and there were two competing schools of thought on this matter as a result.  Read the CE article.  Either that or Bellarmine and St. Thomas were just idiots who didn't understand St. Augustine properly.