C
cgbennett
Guest
Dear Sir or Madam:
I’ve never been quite comfortable with the Latin church’s love affair with scholastic philosophy and Augustine. I guess the point of this inquiry is to ask a question concerning levels of teaching in the Church.
Let me elaborate. One of the major treaties in the reunion of churches in the Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.” Furthermore, Unitatis Redintegratio (#17) notes: “What has just been said about the lawful variety that can exist in the Church must also be taken to apply to the differences in theological expression of doctrine.”
Synopsis? It is clear that I can reasonably reject certain “theological expressions” of the Latin church, such as its understanding of original sin. The Latin concept of original sin, being that humans not only bear the “consequences” of the fall, but also its “guilt” contributed greatly in many ways to my own personal psychopathology that led me to AA. The substitutionary atonement (as elucidated by St. Anselm of Canterbury) is simply unacceptable to me. Always has been. The concept of “ancestral sin” and the “ransom” theory of the atonement, hallmarks of the Eastern churches (Catholic and Orthodox) have always been far more palatable and rational to me.
The question I suppose I am asking – how do I distinguish between that which I can reasonably reject (per my own theological palate) such as the Latin theory of the atonement, purgatory, etc. and that which is essential to the deposit of faith? The specific aspects of the Credo are an obvious answer. But how does this line of reasoning apply to, say, Humane Vitae?
This question isn’t an intellectual exercise for me. There are certain doctrines of the Church that still disturb me on a deep level of conscience, and I have tried my damnedest to subject my will and my life to the care of God as I understand God. However I can’t content myself to be a “liberal” or “cafeteria” Catholic because that very premise is utterly intellectually and morally bankrupt. Either the Church is the beacon of truth or it is utterly a farce. Very few things in life actually lend itself to such a binary division. But the thought does remain – what is in fact dogma, and what is mere theology?
In the same tone, John Thomas Noonan in “The Church That Can and Cannot Change” wonderfully constructs a historical view of the development of doctrine that was laid by Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman. He shows historically how certain things in the Church developed such as its radical shift on slavery, usury, and the salvation of non-Catholics (per Vatican II). So obviously – there is a certain distinction between that which is “theology” and that which is “dogma.” The latter being that which is utterly the Deposit of Faith of the apostles. The “theology” of which I speak is the substitutionary atonement, purgatory (in the way the West understands it), as well as ideas that have become utterly unpopular in the 20th century such as “limbo.” Clearly, in some fashion, theology can develop, while not detracting or changing the original deposit of faith.
So I return to the basic question that has been asked me many times – what must one absolutely believe in order to remain within the Barque of Peter, and what is fluff? Please teach me.
Much Respect,
Christopher
I’ve never been quite comfortable with the Latin church’s love affair with scholastic philosophy and Augustine. I guess the point of this inquiry is to ask a question concerning levels of teaching in the Church.
Let me elaborate. One of the major treaties in the reunion of churches in the Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.” Furthermore, Unitatis Redintegratio (#17) notes: “What has just been said about the lawful variety that can exist in the Church must also be taken to apply to the differences in theological expression of doctrine.”
Synopsis? It is clear that I can reasonably reject certain “theological expressions” of the Latin church, such as its understanding of original sin. The Latin concept of original sin, being that humans not only bear the “consequences” of the fall, but also its “guilt” contributed greatly in many ways to my own personal psychopathology that led me to AA. The substitutionary atonement (as elucidated by St. Anselm of Canterbury) is simply unacceptable to me. Always has been. The concept of “ancestral sin” and the “ransom” theory of the atonement, hallmarks of the Eastern churches (Catholic and Orthodox) have always been far more palatable and rational to me.
The question I suppose I am asking – how do I distinguish between that which I can reasonably reject (per my own theological palate) such as the Latin theory of the atonement, purgatory, etc. and that which is essential to the deposit of faith? The specific aspects of the Credo are an obvious answer. But how does this line of reasoning apply to, say, Humane Vitae?
This question isn’t an intellectual exercise for me. There are certain doctrines of the Church that still disturb me on a deep level of conscience, and I have tried my damnedest to subject my will and my life to the care of God as I understand God. However I can’t content myself to be a “liberal” or “cafeteria” Catholic because that very premise is utterly intellectually and morally bankrupt. Either the Church is the beacon of truth or it is utterly a farce. Very few things in life actually lend itself to such a binary division. But the thought does remain – what is in fact dogma, and what is mere theology?
In the same tone, John Thomas Noonan in “The Church That Can and Cannot Change” wonderfully constructs a historical view of the development of doctrine that was laid by Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman. He shows historically how certain things in the Church developed such as its radical shift on slavery, usury, and the salvation of non-Catholics (per Vatican II). So obviously – there is a certain distinction between that which is “theology” and that which is “dogma.” The latter being that which is utterly the Deposit of Faith of the apostles. The “theology” of which I speak is the substitutionary atonement, purgatory (in the way the West understands it), as well as ideas that have become utterly unpopular in the 20th century such as “limbo.” Clearly, in some fashion, theology can develop, while not detracting or changing the original deposit of faith.
So I return to the basic question that has been asked me many times – what must one absolutely believe in order to remain within the Barque of Peter, and what is fluff? Please teach me.
Much Respect,
Christopher
