Apophatic Theology and Papal Infallibility

[CutlerB]

I’m quite confused about all this. I regularly encounter someone on Facebook who hails Apophatic Theology — in a manner that suggests that he supports it exclusively — above all else. He tends to appeal to this school of Theology especially when Dogmas of the Church (such as the Marian ones) are concerned. Generally, he spins his comments like this: “Infallibly defined Dogmas of the Church do not require positive/active assent/belief, but merely non-rejection”.

If you don’t see the connection between that statement and Apophatic Theology, suffice it to say that I don’t quite either.

So what I really have are two questions:

1. What is Apophatic Theology about? Does it have limits? Is it a widespread school?
2. Do Infallibly defined doctrines (whether Councils or Popes) require active belief by the faithful, or should they merely not deny them?

Thanks.

 

[bzkoss236]

I’m quite confused about all this. I regularly encounter someone on Facebook who hails Apophatic Theology — in a manner that suggests that he supports it exclusively — above all else. He tends to appeal to this school of Theology especially when Dogmas of the Church (such as the Marian ones) are concerned. Generally, he spins his comments like this: “Infallibly defined Dogmas of the Church do not require positive/active assent/belief, but merely non-rejection”.

If you don’t see the connection between that statement and Apophatic Theology, suffice it to say that I don’t quite either.

So what I really have are two questions:

1. What is Apophatic Theology about? Does it have limits? Is it a widespread school?
2. Do Infallibly defined doctrines (whether Councils or Popes) require active belief by the faithful, or should they merely not deny them?

Thanks.

In response to the second question: Infallibly defined doctrines, in the midst of doubt, require humble submission. One can have their doubts about it and struggle with their belief, but must acknowledge that the Church teaches it as truth. More-so, if there is such a doubt, I would say that the believer should work to reconcile the issue by studying what exactly the Church teaches and the history of the doctrine. This is because if the Church is right, then the individual believer must be the one in err and seek to find where their misunderstanding comes from.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m quite confused about all this. I regularly encounter someone on Facebook who hails Apophatic Theology — in a manner that suggests that he supports it exclusively — above all else. He tends to appeal to this school of Theology especially when Dogmas of the Church (such as the Marian ones) are concerned. Generally, he spins his comments like this: “Infallibly defined Dogmas of the Church do not require positive/active assent/belief, but merely non-rejection”.

If you don’t see the connection between that statement and Apophatic Theology, suffice it to say that I don’t quite either.

I agree with you; he seems to be misunderstanding what apophatic theology is all about. It’s not about saying “I don’t reject dogma X”; rather, it’s about trying to understand God by honing in on what God is not. (He’s not a ‘man in the sky’; he’s not ‘Superman’; he’s not ‘an impersonal cosmic force’; etc, etc.)

So what I really have are two questions:

1. What is Apophatic Theology about? Does it have limits? Is it a widespread school?

It’s about trying to get a grip on who God is, by understanding what he’s not. This can be more or less effective as an approach, depending on how you do it.

1. Do Infallibly defined doctrines (whether Councils or Popes) require active belief by the faithful, or should they merely not deny them?

There are a variety of reactions to Church teaching, depending on the type of teaching: credenda (firm belief (i.e., “I believe”)), tenenda (assent (i.e., “I hold to the Church’s teaching”)), or obsequium religiosum (a ‘religious submission of mind and will’ (i.e., “I understand what the Church is teaching, and I’m willing to abide by it”).

All of these would fall under ‘active belief’, as you’ve framed it up; ‘lack of denial’ is not sufficient.

 

[DavidFilmer]

There are a variety of reactions to Church teaching, depending on the type of teaching: credenda (firm belief (i.e., “I believe”)), tenenda (assent (i.e., “I hold to the Church’s teaching”)), or obsequium religiosum (a ‘religious submission of mind and will’ (i.e., “I understand what the Church is teaching, and I’m willing to abide by it”).

All of these would fall under ‘active belief’, as you’ve framed it up; ‘lack of denial’ is not sufficient.

I absolutely agree with your conclusion (active belief), but I am not familiar with the concepts upon which you have framed it. I have taken the liberty of opening another thread to discuss this in more detail. I hope you will join me there.