Hi expect !
1 Ptr 3:15
“
Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.”
To me “anyone” does include a fellow catholic. And I hope I will always be able to find a guy answering my tough questions on faith. ( Who knows, maybe that will be you
)
Therefore, to state that clearly, I am with you on the
quoted issues.
Now, my :twocents: on the theoretical “list” of proclamations issued under the charism of infallibility ( “infallible statement” is
not a meaningful expression, IMHO)
There are brothers, both within the Catholic Church and outside it, particularly in EO churches, who are of the opinion that
the Magisterium has defined and defines too much. Some state so to defend the freedom of theologians and single believers, some to underline the role of Tradition (“less definition, more Tradition”, would likely tell us many orthodox brothers, I guess, but Mickey can correct this point of course if the impression is wrong).
Other brothers, both within the Church and outside it, particularly in western Christianity, are of the opinion that too little has been defined. Where is a magisterial list of all the Fathers of the Church ? Of all the statements with the highest degree of certainty (de fide), as we’re looking for here ?
Of all grave sins, described in any detail ? …
So, as it often goes, opposite legitimate criticisms to the Church mirror each other. Any degree of “definition-ism” ( let’s forgive the horrible expression
), in particular, will always be too little and too much.
Now, for our case. Let’s suppose the Magisterium gives itself the task to prepare and issue a complete and easy-to-read list of all and only those teachings which are to be considered of the highest degree of certainty. Not an easy task indeed, we could observe, considering how precisely every statement should be formulated there. Let’s suppose the task is successfully accomplished, against all difficulties.
Here we have “the list” ! Great !
But, after a while, someone would begin observing. “Wait a moment. We have the new document with the list.
But …what degree of certainty has precisely that document itself ? Is it “de fide” ?”. Here we could have the new field for theological speculations, and new likely criticisms such as “*What use is a statement about what statements are certain, if we don’t know … if that statement is certain ?” *So speculations could grow, until…a possible new magisterial document about the status of the list, and afterwards about this document itself, ad infinitum.
I’m trying to tell that IMHO we can probably go into a logical difficulty in asking Magisterium to define infallibly what it has defined infallibly.
Similarly, you cannot find in Scripture a definition of what is in Scripture.
Does that mean that definitions of the living infallible Magisterium are useless. ? Rather, what we have IMHO is a structural dialectical relation between magisterial definitions of whatever degree of authority and speculative contributions by theologians and people all over the world. People can and must speculate about definitions, their precise meanings, the nature and degree of certainty of every sentence within them. There will always be, as there has always been, both magisterial and purely speculative theology.
The Magisterium listens to speculations and, if and only if necessary, issues new documents to give the right direction, with corrections, endorsements … Let’s remember that the main task of the Magisterium is not “defining” in itself , it is serving the Word of God, by guarding the deposit of the faith and being witness to it. It then “defines” if and when necessary to its task, every time using in adequate degree its authority.
I hope this can help
