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

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

Author Topic: Was the Denzinger tampered with?  (Read 3982 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Was the Denzinger tampered with?
« on: January 30, 2020, 05:36:12 PM »

I was reading Msgr. Clifford Fenton's article on The Local Church of Rome, and he quotes the following: Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.
.
This condemnation is obviously highly relevant to our current situation, so I try to look it up. The footnote refers to Denzinger 730. Lo and behold, it isn't there! Denzinger doesn't have a 730 at all, but goes from 729 directly to 731. Am I going crazy or something? But then that canon is put in the footnote instead, with no explanation for why it was removed. Does anyone have any idea about this? https://archive.org/details/DenzingerTheSourcesOfCatholicDogma/page/n265/mode/2up
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2020, 06:01:36 PM »
Quote from: Yeti on January 30, 2020, 05:36:12 PM
I was reading Msgr. Clifford Fenton's article on The Local Church of Rome, and he quotes the following: Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.
.
This condemnation is obviously highly relevant to our current situation, so I try to look it up. The footnote refers to Denzinger 730. Lo and behold, it isn't there! Denzinger doesn't have a 730 at all, but goes from 729 directly to 731. Am I going crazy or something? But then that canon is put in the footnote instead, with no explanation for why it was removed. Does anyone have any idea about this? https://archive.org/details/DenzingerTheSourcesOfCatholicDogma/page/n265/mode/2up
Yes, it was tampered with in a major way.
I forget all the in’s and outs, but apparently just after Vatican II, Karl Rahner edited the Denzinger (I think in 1965, but possibly even already before the council in 1954/5), and his great contribution was to gut the book of all its Tridentine/Baroque theology, return all the way to the teachings of the first couple centuries, and then “redevelop” that doctrine in a direction consistent with Vatican II.
Someone can correct my dates, but that’s what he did as editor of the Denzinger.
Matthew and I were taught this by Fr. Iscara as a digression in Liturgy class.
Logged

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2020, 06:14:42 PM »
Interesting, thank you! I suspected something as much. But why would he remove that condemnation? You would think he would want that in there if he thought the powers of Rome (however you define them) were going to start teaching error soon, no?
.
And I have been searching the internet for more about this Peter Martinez of Osma. He seems to be almost unknown. He did get involved in the debate about how to reform the calendar and how to calculate the date of Easter each year, according to a paper I found about him: https://www.ehumanista.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.span.d7_eh/files/sitefiles/ehumanista/volume23/7%20ehumanista23.nothaft.pdf
.
I'm wondering if Peter had a disagreement with the pope about the correct way to restore the calendar (this being before the 10 days were suppressed from October in the 1500s), and that's all the pope was talking about when he condemned Peter Martinez's assertion that the Church of Rome could err. You would think the pope would have been a little more specific if that were the case, so this seems unlikely, but I can't find any more information about this online. The full text of this Bull of Sixtus IV doesn't seem to exist online except in the Denzinger that Rahner fooled with, and there is precious little, anywhere on the internet, about Peter Martinez of Osma.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2020, 06:56:17 PM »
More on Rahner's involvement with the Denzinger (though this reviewer denies that Rahner did much modernizing): I am wondering if my memory is faulty, and the updating occurred after the 1957 Rahner editions?



"First published in 1854, "The Denzinger" has undergone numerous updates, revisions, and additions, and is an indispensable resource for the Catholic. You will see citations to it in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma[/font][/color],The Catechism of the Catholic Church[/font][/color], and a slew of other works that reference or detail the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Citations to The Denzinger from other works can be a bit tricky given the numerous editions but there are four main abbreviations used:

D - Denzinger, the versions edited by Denzinger himself from 1854
DB - Denzinger-Banwart, the editions updated by Clemens Banwart up to 1921
DR - Denzinger-Rahner, updated by Karl Rahner up to 1954 (there is a 1957 31st edition with corrigenda)
DS - Denzinger-Schonmetzer, updated by Adolph Schönmetzer up to 1965

The editions from 1957 and before (D, DB, DR) use one numbering scheme for its paragraphs, while post-1957 editions use a different one. Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma follows the first scheme, The CCC follows the second. The recently published Loreto 1954 edition has a concordance in the front that enables you to look up CCC citations in the 1954 edition. As far as I can determine, the last edition translated into English is the 1954 30th edition (updated in 1957 with corrections and released as the 31st edition); the latest revision, including the one referenced in the Catechism, is in Latin. Other recent editions are available in Spanish, French, and Italian.

Speaking of the 1954 edition (the 30th), which is the one most sellers seem to be offering and the subject of this review, the name Karl Rahner may have jumped off the page as the reviser. Yes, it's *that* Karl Rahner: one of the founders of the Nouvelle Théologie and a major force in Vatican II updating a work by a pioneer of Positive Theology. The involvement of Rahner on The Denzinger seems to have raised some question about whether he (Rahner) chose to include some docuмents that are not wholly representative of Church Teaching. The question is somewhat plausible - specifically because one or two entries left me scratching my head, and generally because it is acknowledged that not every docuмent ever written by a Pope or Council is considered by the Church to be de fide, "of the faith"; and, lastly, it's important that all teachings are placed in their proper context. So it's possible that someone could gather pieces and excerpts which support a particular agenda to the exclusion of others that might put the subject matter in a different light. In my humble, unlearned opinion, I don't think the criticism that there is widespread bias in Rahner's editing is valid."
Logged

Offline Kazimierz

Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2020, 07:30:47 PM »
Karl Rahner - the Durin's Bane of Catholic theology

No doubt he tried to fit things in with his Transcendental Thomist apostasy. I studied this arch-heretic in great depth. Part of my Masters thesis was a critique of his Mariology, and his theology in general.

Talk about the Rhine flowing into the Tiber. Rahner would be that nasty little dwarf Albrecht who swiped the gold from the flighty and likely immodest Rhinemaidens, metaphorically speaking.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
« previous next »