Can one be progressive, yet orthodox?

[Catholic2003]

Brendan:

And therefore only one of those people, by definition of the word itself , can be orthodox.

Yes, if you make an a priori stipulation that all orthodox Catholics think alike, then the entire point of this the thread is moot.

However, the OP defined orthodox as “loyal to the Magisterium”, and I have responded accordingly.

 

[Brendan]

Catholic2003:

I’m not infallible in anything, but I hold that the infallibility of the Church’s teaching on contraception is a legitimate matter for debate among the Church’s theologians.

The main reason I hold this believe is that orthodox Catholic theologians are currently debating this very issue.

We all are infallible on certain things.

For example I can infallibly state that 2+2 = 4 in Base 10 notation.

There is no error in that statement, it is infallible.

So the observation does remain

So, I seem to gather that you infallibly hold that the teaching is not infallible?

 

[Brendan]

Catholic2003:

Yes, if you make an a priori stipulation that all orthodox Catholics think alike, then the entire point of this the thread is moot.

However, the OP defined orthodox as “loyal to the Magisterium”, and I have responded accordingly.

And if the Magisterium of the Church has declared that the teachings articulated in Humane Vitae are, in fact infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium.

 

[Catholic2003]

Brendan:

We all are infallible on certain things.

For example I can infallibly state that 2+2 = 4 in Base 10 notation.

There is no error in that statement, it is infallible.

There is no error in that statement, it is true.

You are confusing the infallibility of the teaching act with the truth of the teaching itself. As Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone states:

Furthermore, the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the depositum fide), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching.

 

[Catholic2003]

Brendan:

And if the Magisterium of the Church has declared that the teachings articulated in Humane Vitae are, in fact infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium.

If and when the Magisterium declares one way or the other about the infallibility of the teaching contained in Humanae Vitae, then there can be no more legitimate debate about this issue among orthodox Catholics.

Until that time, however, the matter lies in the hands of our orthodox theologians.

 

[ncjohn]

Brendan:

I’ll rephrase what I said about exactly what ‘Orthodox’ means

And one thing you are forgetting. The very defintion of the word ‘Orthodox’. It means ‘right belief’ ortho - correct\right + doxos - belief.

If one person believes that the doctrines of Humanae Vitae are restatements of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium and the other person believes the opposite, such teaching are NOT part of the Ordinary Magisterium, only one of those beliefs can be right.

And therefore only one of those people, by definition of the word itself , can be orthodox.

I’ve seen you use this P/NOT P argument several times now and, with all due respect, it’s just as faulty now as it was the first time.

It first presupposes that P or NOT P is A criterion for orthodoxy. Before that supposition can be employed, one first must ensure that the definition of orthodoxy is agreed upon. Then one must be able to show how one’s position relative to either P or NOT P is a criterion.

Number one, as to the agreed definition, your simplistic “right belief” definition notwithstanding, has not been established.

Number two as to whether the position is a criterion of orthodoxy is precisely what is being discussed, and on which there is disagreement, so the hypothesis logically fails.

As I have said, there are positions here where I choose to submit and stand with the Church, while recognizing that others may have valid claims to needing further clarification. Since there are orthodox theologians who agree with them (or at least to be discussing the possibilities), I will choose to believe that it cannot infallibly be stated that they are not being orthodox. I will also choose to not claim to be able to read their motivations and whether God is or is not pleased with their efforts, knowing that there are efforts of my own that are substantially lacking.

Peace,

 

[Brendan]

ncjohn:

I’ve seen you use this P/NOT P argument several times now and, with all due respect, it’s just as faulty now as it was the first time.

It first presupposes that P or NOT P is A criterion for orthodoxy. Before that supposition can be employed, one first must ensure that the definition of orthodoxy is agreed upon. Then one must be able to show how one’s position relative to either P or NOT P is a criterion.

Number one, as to the agreed definition, your simplistic “right belief” definition notwithstanding, has not been established.

But that IS the classical definition of the word, is it not?

What defintintion would you like to propose then?

Number two as to whether the position is a criterion of orthodoxy is precisely what is being discussed, and on which there is disagreement, so the hypothesis logically fails.

As I have said, there are positions here where I choose to submit and stand with the Church, while recognizing that others may have valid claims to needing further clarification. Since there are orthodox theologians who agree with them (or at least to be discussing the possibilities), I will choose to believe that it cannot infallibly be stated that they are not being orthodox. I will also choose to not claim to be able to read their motivations and whether God is or is not pleased with their efforts, knowing that there are efforts of my own that are substantially lacking.

Peace,

I have little doubt that some issues require further clarification. But that clarification MUST come from the teaching arm of the Church, the Magisterium.

That is the only guaranteed 100% Source of Truth related to Faith and Morals.

I made no claims to knowing anyone’s motivations, nor would I choose to even attempt. Not only do I not have any power to do so, but from a practical stand point, one’s motivation are actually immaterial to the determination of the objective Truth of a premise.

If a premise is True, my motivations or anyone else’s do not add or subtract to the Truthfullness of the premise.

The Teachings of Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis are either True or they are not. There is no middle ground between those posits.

And the competent teaching authority has spoken.

Now there ARE theologian who wonder if the criteria were met, so the DCF issued statement saying the criteria had, in fact been met. The teachings are infallible parts of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Some of these theologians then questioned the conpetency of the DCF to issue such statements. IN a grand circle of logic, these theologians said that since the DCF cannot issue Extraordinary declarations of Infallibly, they cannot comment on the Ordinary Magisterium.

In other words, they feel the only Ordinary teachings that are infallible are the ones declared ExtraOrdinarily. Talk about a contradiction of terms.

 

[St.BJLabre]

Here are some issues that orthodox Catholics can and do disagree on:
Whether females should be installed as permanent lectors and acolytes.
Whether females could (and if so, should) be ordained to the permanent diaconate.
Whether the laity, including women, should be involved in the selection/election of Bishops and the Pope.
Whether the laity should have a greater role in the administration of the Church.
Whether the laity should have a greater role in the liturgy.
Whether the Church’s teaching on contraception is infallible.
Whether a modern Pope can proclaim an ex cathedra teaching without knowing it.
On each of these issues, it seems clear that there is a progressive side and a non-progressive side.

I think you might be pushing the envelope on a couple of these issues. Woman cannot be ordained, period. There is not disagreement among orthodox Catholics. The same with the contraception issue. It is an infallible teaching of the Church that contraception is evil and a sin. There is no room for disagreement.

 

[Catholic2003]

St.BJLabre:

I think you might be pushing the envelope on a couple of these issues. Woman cannot be ordained, period. There is not disagreement among orthodox Catholics. The same with the contraception issue. It is an infallible teaching of the Church that contraception is evil and a sin. There is no room for disagreement.

I can understand how you might think this, as there are apparently a number of Catholic writers who incorrectly and misleadingly present these issues as having been definitively settled by the Magisterium.

Here are threads where female permanent deacons have been discussed:

Deaconesses, really ordainable?
Those in favor of women’s ordination state your case.
Should women be ordained?

Hare are threads where the infallibility of the Church’s teaching on contraception have been discussed:

What happens if the teaching on contraception changes?
Cafeteria Catholics Guild: Now accepting applications

 

[Brendan]

Catholic2003:

I there are apparently a number of Catholic writers who incorrectly and misleadingly present these issues as having been definitively settled by the Magisterium.

At least one whose last name is Ratzinger

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Lux_et_veritas:

Setting aside discussion of traditional versus contemporary, as associated with religious practices and worship, I want to focus on two terms often used: Progressive and orthdox.

Let’s also keep the words liberal and conservative off the table, as well since these two terms have proven consistently to be problematic.

I want to know if my views are “off” and if they can be countered. If so, provide examples. I would like to see if there are examples of progressives that are somehow orthodox. The only way this can happen is if how i view “orthodox” and “progressive” are in error. Therefore, please feel free to share your view of what progressive and orthodox mean. However, I simply want to caution that one can be orthodox and contemporary in their worship preferences, and one can probably even be traditional in worship preferences yet progressive - but less likely. That’s why I want to stick with belief systems and stay away from worship preferences in this discussion.

My view of “orthodox” is synonomous with “loyal to the Magisterium” or “assenting to the Magisterium”. Orthodox views do not conflict with magisterial teachings, nor do they conflict with magisterial explanations of scripture. An orthodox priest will encourage confession of things like masturbation, which, even though the CCC allows mitigating circumstances to reduce the level of personal gravity, remains “intrinsically disordered” and worthy of continued frequent confession in an effort to bring to an end. Orthodox-minded priests also encourage frequent confession, if only for venial sins and imperfections and will put the time in the confessional to coach the penitent through these challenges. Orthodoxy reflects something acknowledged by Fr. John Corapi using electrical current as an example: Electricity doesn’t run only on a positive. it requires a positive and a negative or you don’t have it. Therefore, you cannot eliminate talk of sin, sacrifice, mortification, and hot ethical issues of the day (abortion, cloning, etc.). This is reflected in homilies that are balanced with positive and negative.

My view of “progressive” is often synonomous with “dissent” because so many progressive issues involve: Women’s ordination (dissents against Ordinatio Sacerdotalis), or contraception (dissents against Humanae Vitae), and in some cases, even makes allowances for some abortions or dismisses all cases of masturbation as “not sinful” because the CCC allows for mitigation. Some will go so far as to say that it is not necessary to confess this. Progressive priests, in my mind (and experience), will often discourage confession of venial sins and imperfections, even calling such behavior scrupulous in some cases. Progressives subscribe to interpretations of the scripture, which may not be reflected in the magisterial teachings on the subject. Not all of these elements are required for one to be in the progressive camp. Progressives attempt to run electricity on the positive only. Homilies will avoid uncomfortable “negative” subjects in favor of positive or ones that are comforting. This leads to a type of banality in those homilies.

Subjects such as priestly celibacy may very well be one example of where one could be progressive (in wanting to allow for married priests), while remaining orthodox. This is one of those issues that the Church has the right to change, unlike ordination of males only, which is now in the deposit of faith and requires definitive assent. However, maybe it is in how a person handles this issue: If they humbly accept the Church’s position today, which is in favor of celibacy, then they are acting in an orthodox manner, respectful of her decision. If they are speaking against the Church defiantly on the subject, then I would throw them right into the progressive-exclusive camp.

All this having been said, can my views be countered? If so, how?

If there are theologians who could be considered progressive, yet orthodox, please provide supporting information. If someone beleives otherwise, please provide counter-information. I would like this discussion to focus on information that is available - writings, CCC, canon law, published works of various theologians, etc.

Please spare me the blanket statement that we should not use “labels”. This is a discussion about ideals - orthodox and progressive and what these two terms might mean. If you want to debunk the labels themselves, present a good argument that would contradict the labels in some way and that will support the cause of “no labels” without making that blanket statement.

By these criteria, I’m orthodox. I don’t think I’m really progressive. I am pretty cranky, though.

 

[Catholic2003]

Brendan:

At least one whose last name is Ratzinger

Can you provide a reference for this claim?

 

[AquinasXVI]

Light and Truth:

Great question and worth pondering.

Progress can only be truly considered progressive if the parameters are set and the subject is moving to point A to point B. But as GKC said, how could the modern notion of progress justify itself when it changes often…what is considered progressive today is not progressive on Sunday…It’s difficult to use the word progress universally for it really has to be placed in the context of what the movement is about.

I’d say The Theology of the Body is both progressive in the Chestertonian sense that it’s moving towards a fixed target yet it is completely orthodox. I’d say that EWTN is progressive in the sense that they’re using media that has never been available or been used before yet their message is completely orthodox.
in XT.

 

[Matt16_18]

Lux_et_veritas:

My view of “progressive” is often synonomous with “dissent” …

Hey folks, let’s create a strawman and then slap it around for our entertainment …

If you are going to define “progressive” as synonymous with “dissenter”, then no, it is impossible to be both a orthodox Catholic that does not dissent with the doctrines of the Faith and also be an orthodox Catholic that does dissent with the doctrines of the Faith.

What you need is a better definition of progressive, such as, the progressive Catholic would like to see progress made in the realm of human rights. If we were to define “progressive” in that manner, then we could also say that Jesus was both progressive and orthodox - as all Catholics are called to be.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Matt16_18:

Hey folks, let’s create a strawman and then slap it around for our entertainment …

If you are going to define “progressive” as synonymous with “dissenter”, then no, it is impossible to be both a orthodox Catholic that does not dissent with the doctrines of the Faith and also be an orthodox Catholic that does dissent with the doctrines of the Faith.

What you need is a better definition of progressive, such as, the progressive Catholic would like to see progress made in the realm of human rights. If we were to define “progressive” in that manner, then we could also say that Jesus was both progressive and orthodox - as all Catholics are called to be.

Even the media have used these terms. They talk about Fr. Richard McBrien, they call him a “progressive”. They talk about Pope Benedict, they call him “orthodox”.

Let’s just look at some of what is contained in the book, Catholicism by Richard McBrien. The USCCB blasted this book, point-by-point and said it was not to be used in introductory theology classes. In light of what it says about original sin, I’m shocked it wasn’t outright condemned. I was searching for the original USCCB document, but the hyper-link has been pushed way back in lieu of all the voting/life controversies surrounding McBrien’s stands in the 2004 election. Anyone else finding it, please feel free to link it. For now, Adoremus has it captured.

McBrien’s “understanding” of the doctrine of Original Sin reads as follows: “Although the later doctrine of Original Sin has been read back into Paul’s Letter to the Romans, neither biblical scholars nor theologians would agree that it is, in fact, there” (p. 186); “Contemporary theologians, especially Rahner, reject the notion that Original Sin is simply the sin of the first human being or is a matter of collective guilt. These views, they hold, cannot be sustained biblically or theologically” (p. 198).

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Catholic2003:

I’m not infallible in anything, but I hold that the infallibility of the Church’s teaching on contraception is a legitimate matter for debate among the Church’s theologians.

The main reason I hold this belief is that orthodox Catholic theologians are currently debating this very issue.

We have a guest to this discussion. He is deceased, but his words live forever.

Pope John Paul II made a profound statement on infallibility and dissent as captured in the book "Reflections on the Encyclical ‘Veritatis Splendor’" by Rev. Albert J. M. Shamon (ISBN 1-891280-03-1), page 4.

Shamon says:

When Pope John Paul II was asked, “Doesn’t a moral theologian have the right to dissent on ‘non-infallible’ teachings?” the Pope covered his eyes, paused, not to collect his thoughts but to make the right choice of words, then he answered:

Of course, the Church has made no solemn declaration of infallibility, regarding moral issues, but infallible declarations on any subject have been extremely rare and exceptional in the history of the Church. If you believe only those declarations, you have very little left to believe.

But moral questions are covered by the “ordinary Magisterium,” and it is our duty to insist on their being obeyed. After all, no solemn declaration of infallibility ever was made regarding the Ten Commandments, or the commandment to love your neighbor. Does this mean you have a right to dissent on those teachings? (Wilton Wnn, Keeper of the Keys, pp255)

You could probably go on and on, aside from the Ten Commandments and loving one’s neighbor.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Pope John Paul II also had this to say following an ad limina visit with Australia’s bishops. To say they got a thrashing (read entire document) would be an understatement, and it could have easily applied here in the US.

The Statement was clear and direct in this regard:

The teaching of the bishops must be **“In union with the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church … **[emphasis mine]The People of God who are entrusted to their care have a right to receive authentic and clear Catholic teaching from those who represent the Church in its various institutions …”

Church’s teaching

“It is their grave responsibility, clearly and unambiguously, to proclaim the Church’s teaching and to do all that they can to preserve the faithful from error … The bishop may not tolerate error in matters of doctrine and morals or Church discipline, and true unity must never be at the expense of truth.”

In his office of sanctifying, …[see full article]

As for the third area, governing, in “choosing their collaborators in the diocesan administration, seminary and in parishes, bishops need to make these appointments with a careful eye and with great attention, always giving emphasis to sanctity of life, orthodoxy and pastoral competence. Continual vigilance is imperative in order to safeguard the integrity of the Faith and to ensure that it is clearly taught and explained at all levels of diocesan life.”

Note: Each of the underlined and emboldened words within the paragraphs are … emphasis mine.

 

[Catholic2003]

Lux_et_veritas:

When Pope John Paul II was asked, “Doesn’t a moral theologian have the right to dissent on ‘non-infallible’ teachings?”

The discussion among orthodox Catholic theologians is whether the teaching on contraception is infallible. Neither side claims that there is any right to dissent from non-infallible teachings.

 

[Brendan]

Catholic2003:

The discussion among orthodox Catholic theologians is whether the teaching on contraception is infallible. Neither side claims that there is any right to dissent from non-infallible teachings.

What is concerning me here is the reliance on theologians, either orthodox or not.

There is not a single non episcopal theologian who has more theaching authority that a bishop, any bishop.

They are advisors to the bishops, while the bishops are the teachers of authority.

If a theologian differs from the bishop, he may present his case to the bishop, but the bishop is the determiner of what teaching shall be proclaimed to his flock.

A Bishop himself is obligated by both office and oath to teach in accord with the Pope.

And in that way, all the faithful, throughout the world might expect to be taught that which is true.

So if you have a question on a teaching, ask your bishop or Rome. Anything else is not authoratative.

And why would one base beliefs on non-authoritative sources?

 

[ncjohn]

Lux_et_veritas:

Even the media have used these terms. They talk about Fr. Richard McBrien, they call him a “progressive”. They talk about Pope Benedict, they call him “orthodox”.

That’s wonderful, but the media usage (or misuage) of the word, or your narrow use of it with regards to one extreme example, do not change the inherent meaning of the word. If you are really trying here to define the term progressive–as your OP possibly suggests–as synonomous with dissent, then I would argue that you are using a narrow preconception to steer the discussion to a desired end, with that end being permission to tar people as “dissenters”. I’m hoping that is not the case and that you were being fothright in your original question of whether you are adequately definiing the term and whether “progressive” and “orthodox” can exist simultaneously.

“Progressive” also legitimately means one who seeks growth. Those whose increased understanding brought them to the understanding of the Trinity were “progressive”. Those whose understanding brought them to proclaiming teachings on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption were progressives. Jesus himself was a progressive in turning the teachings of the time–thought to be the ULTIMATE in Orthodoxy!–on their heads.

Given this, IMHO, any attempt to paint someone who is progressive in the sense of seeking further growth and further understanding of the Truth leads to a conclusion that “orthodoxy” must then be defined as seeking stagnation.

I think we all agree, as the Church teaches, that while doctrines don’t change, the understanding of them does develop and grow over time. Many other teachings which are not doctrinal continue to emerge and grow. That, by definition, is “progressive”. Unless I’m missing something, there is nothing unorthodox about that.

As such I can only come to two possible conclusions. The first is that many orthodox people have been and are being progressive. The other possibility would seem to be that progress and growth are being accomplished by “dissidents” and then found to be true and adopted by the “orthodox”. That however would then lead to a conclusion that those dissidents were actually then orthodox to begin with but people didn’t realize it.

Either way, I can’t see a way that we can come to a conclusion that people can’t be progressive, in a positive sense, and orthodox at the same time. In fact, I would venture to suggest that we shoud all be striving to be exactly that.

Peace,