A great sermon on the Papacy

[JReducation]

I wanted to reply to each point but it seemed more like a debate then so I thought I will extract what I still find hard to understand.

Take the example of a hypothetical Pope commanding that all women must wear a bikini to Church.

1. Is there anything intrinsically evil in the act of wearing a Bikini? No.
2. Is there anything imprudent about it and is it a near occasion of sin? Anyone with some traditional Catholic sensibilities will agree (so will most moderns who ever considered lust and leading others to temptation to both be a serious sins).
3. There is also nothing in doctrine that says a Pope is prevented from making such a statement

But the problem however is that while this is traditional, it is not natural law. So if I were to follow what you say, the Pope must be obeyed. That seems wrong.

So to me it seems like there are cases where one can disagree with the Pope’s decisions. All these cases must necessarily be due to a contradiction with traditional practices and sensibilities. In doing so, one is not arbitrarily saying what one believes but voicing concerns or sensibilities in sync with previous authorities of the Church itself.

Can you elaborate what is wrong in this thinking?

I think that the problem here is that because Catholicism is very grounded in philosophy, this is not a question that I or any other theologian would engage in. Because the probability that a pope would issue such a command is practically non-existent.

You’ll have to provide a positive possibility. This is not one of them.

 

[BanjoPlayer]

You obviously have never read the great poem by Hillaire Belloc

And before anyone tries to say that Belloc wasn’t a good tradition Catholic, keep in mind the following speech he made when his election to political office was challenged because of his Catholic faith.
Hilaire Belloc
He was elected to Parliament as a Liberal from 1906 to 1910, but came to believe that the parliamentary system was largely a sham. His famous election campaign speech, made to a mainly Protestant audience, gives us an idea of his combative nature:
“I am a Catholic. As far as possible I go to Mass every day. This (taking a rosary out of his pocket) is a rosary. As far as possible, I kneel down and tell these beads every day. If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of being your representative!”

There was a moment of stunned silence followed by thunderous applause, and Belloc was duly elected.

(I removed the font size formatting in your reply because I found it a bit distracting)

I respect your view if you think that night clubbing is an ideal thing for a Christian to do. But knowing what I know and seeing what I have seen, I am not sure any Christian should be night clubbing. This is not because Catholics should not have fun. There are wholesome ways of having fun and and unwholesome ways of having fun.

Saints in the past have written much about why women should not go to dances and such. So I do not think it necessary for me to explain why those reasons have become even more amplified in today’s settings.

But this is not a thread about night clubbing. So I am not very interested in continuing the discussion on this matter.

However, thank you for your reply and your information on Belloc is much appreciated!

 

[BanjoPlayer]

I think that the problem here is that because Catholicism is very grounded in philosophy, this is not a question that I or any other theologian would engage in. Because the probability that a pope would issue such a command is practically non-existent.

You’ll have to provide a positive possibility. This is not one of them.

But there is nothing philosophical or theological that prevents a Pope from saying such a thing. (is there?)

So it seems like a real possibility. Given that it is a real possibility, should not one be disobedient in that case, at least hypothetically?

EDIT: Also, which criteria can we use to see that this possibility is something that a Pope will never make? Could not one use the same criterion to say that a Pope should be disobeyed if a decision matches that criteria?

 

[JReducation]

I do not share this view since I do not believe in knowing a person very well apart from reason and what is revealed through the Church.

Whoah!!!

Slow down here. You just threw 2,000 year of Catholic Spiritual Theology under the bus. Most Spiritual Theology is based on experience with the person of Jesus Christ, not with reason at all.

Reason is in the domain of Systematic Theology. However, Systematic theology is used for apologetics. The spiritual life and the way of perfection is nurtured through Spirituality. Spirituality is experiential more than the rational.

Obviously, nothing that involves God and man is going to be completely void of reason. It is reason that tells us whether an experience is of God or not. But the experience itself is not confined by reason. For example, Catherine of Siena’s Dialogue is not based on reason. It is a product of her contemplation. Teresa of Avila’s Way of Perfection is a product of contemplation and lived experiences. The Cloud of Unknowing is a product of contemplation and experience, as the the Ascent to Mt. Carmel by John of the Cross. Even a more didactic work such as The Third Spiritual Alphabet by Francis of Osuna is rooted in experience with Christ, not reason. It uses reason to organize the experience and to present the experience. But there is an apriori experience that is not rational.

If you hold on to your position as being the only possibility you will also throw the entire Franciscan family under the bus. We’re speaking here about 300 million men and women. Franciscan theology begins with a personal experience with the person of Jesus Christ and then appeals to reason to explain the experience and to organize the the concepts. No one can enter the Franciscan order who does not approach faith through experience with the person of Christ before reason. It’s not allowed by the Rule itself and the Testament itself. Francis made it very clear that no one, not even the Church told him what to do. He made very clear that everything he did and everything he commanded us to do was given to him via direct revelation from Christ himself. We Franciscans bank on this. We follow the way of life that he lays out for us as the path to salvation, because we believe that it was revealed to him by Christ himself. The Church confirms this as being true. And she confirms this path as a way to salvation. This path does not begin with reason. It begins with a personal relationship of one man with Christ. Those who seek to follow him, must seek that same relationship in their lives or they do not have a vocation to this way.

It’s OK to say that one does not use experience, but one uses logic and Church teaching. It is not OK to say that one cannot know Christ apart from reason and the teachings of the Church. That’s contrary to what the Church has approved by way of endorsement of many mystical and spiritual theologians and by way of approving a way of life for millions of people . . . a way of life that is grounded on knowing first and reason later.

 

[BanjoPlayer]

Whoah!!!

Slow down here. You just threw 2,000 year of Catholic Spiritual Theology under the bus. Most Spiritual Theology is based on experience with the person of Jesus Christ, not with reason at all.

Reason is in the domain of Systematic Theology. However, Systematic theology is used for apologetics. The spiritual life and the way of perfection is nurtured through Spirituality. Spirituality is experiential more than the rational.

I admit that I was not precise enough in stating what I wanted to say. I agree with almost everything you have said. But what I disagreed with the poster was on the issue of simply thinking of following/experiencing a person apart from the rest.

In all of the various spirituality’s of the Church, such a thing is not possible. All of them begin with a doctrinal and even traditional foundation. It is inevitable. To start from nothing would imply to have a new revelation which still cannot tell us if it is authentic unless the Church rules positive (which is again going back to doctrinal and traditional practice).

It is only that point that I wished to make.

 

[TimothyH]

I admit that I was not precise enough in stating what I wanted to say. I agree with almost everything you have said. But what I disagreed with the poster was on the issue of simply thinking of following/experiencing a person apart from the rest.

In all of the various spirituality’s of the Church, such a thing is not possible. All of them begin with a doctrinal and even traditional foundation. It is inevitable. To start from nothing would imply to have a new revelation which still cannot tell us if it is authentic unless the Church rules positive (which is again going back to doctrinal and traditional practice).

It is only that point that I wished to make.

I think the monastic spirituality - the spirituality of desire - is more experience based than many realize. It certainly seems to make many “scholastics” uncomfortable and was quite foreign to me, disconcerting actually, when I encountered it for the first time at the Monastery. It didn’t make sense because it could not be classified and organized in my mind.

While he does not speak about spirituality but about theology, Benedict XVI’s general audience titled “Monastic and Scholastic Theology” from 2009 illustrates my point. It is a very quick and easy read.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

I think the monastic spirituality - the spirituality of desire - is more experience based than many realize. It certainly seems to make many “scholastics” uncomfortable and was quite foreign to me, disconcerting actually, when I encountered it for the first time at the Monastery. It didn’t make sense because it could not be classified and organized in my mind.

While he does not speak about spirituality but about theology, Benedict XVI’s general audience titled “Monastic and Scholastic Theology” from 2009 illustrates my point. It is a very quick and easy read.

-Tim-

Actually, spirituality is a branch of theology. It’s a very highly specialized branch right up there with Canon Law and Scripture. These are areas of theology that are so complex that they have become their own disciplines. Ascetic and Mystical Theology is my doctorate. Today it goes under Spiritual Theology.

But I won’t derail the thread with that.

You are 150% Right.

The monastic school is experiential, not rational.

Again, remembering that anything that involves God and man cannot be all one and not the other. It’s really a case of more one than the other. 60-40 kind of thing.

This is true of the Benedictine, Cistercian, Carthusian, Augustinian, Carmelite, Jesuit and Franciscan schools. Which is rather interesting because men like Bonaventure and Duns Scotus were part of the Scholastic School, but they were experiential, not Socratic.

@Banjo

The rule in theology and philosophy is that you only speculate on what is possible. What is possible is determined by what has been experienced. This is governed by rules that come from Philosophy of History and Historical Theology. We (theologians and religious educators) do not go outside of those rules. To do so only creates chaos. One can go crazy speculating over scenarios that will never happen. The human imagination can come up with millions of scenarios. But they’re not worth discussing of the chances of them happening are nil.

For this discussion to be worthy of a scholar, we have to play by the rules of theological and philosophical scholarship. Otherwise, I’m out of here. It’s not worth my time and trouble. CAF is one of my assignments, not an entertainment. I was assigned here to teach, not to speculate.

The fact that something is possible, does not make it probable. Therefore, it is excluded from philosophy and theology. Philosophy and theology only deal in what’s probable. It has to be probable with certainty.