Pope Benedict XVI on the Magisterium: What does this mean?

[rwoehmke]

You ought to write his sermons so’s we can understand them.
Re:
“… does not “invent” doctrine or dogma and then impose it on the Faithful.”
Who was it that “proposed” to Fr Feeney again?

Well, anyway I always did suspect it was the imposing Boston Israelites.

ps.
I’m thinkin of going from Sede to Universalist, cause then it’s all about arguing if you get the Mercedes in Heaven or just an Audi, and the only thing that’s damned is Hell, and the papacy is more or less a “proposal”.

Feeney had his choices and no one came with axe and sword to haul him off to the basement of the Vatican.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Happy were those Catholics who lived when popes spoke clearly, and their every word did not have to be deciphered! “Let your yes be yes, and your no be no,” says Our Lord.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

As I said, there’s much more hear than a description of the free will to reject teachings of the Magisterium.

When he uses language and imagery like it’s an “aid” to a “direct encounter” – that clearly implies phenomenology. And it’s widely known that both Benedict XVI and John Paul II were phenomenological in their theology. I was hoping that perhaps someone on the board had a deeper / broader knowledge of phenomenology than I do.

Res,

I don’t know much about phenomenology, but I’d also like to learn more about it. It seems like it can either be good or bad. For instance, it’s my understanding that Deitrich Von Hildebrand was a phenomenologist, but he was solidly traditional. Pope Pius XII called him a 20th century doctor of the Church. Are you familiar with Von Hildebrand? But then again, JPII was apparently a phenomenologist, and many of his views are, well, somewhat questionable, at least in their approach if not their substance. If you know of any resources to learn more about this topic, please pass them along.

 

[Contarini]

Kinda makes you wonder if the Pope read it after someone else wrote it for him. Whatever happened to the Magisterium of the Church as being one of the three teaching authorities?

Well, that’s a silly claim made up by Catholic apologists, as far as I can tell. Nothing happened to it because it was never the Church’s teaching.

The Pope is saying the same thing Dei Verbum says. The Magisterium is not the master of the Word. It doesn’t make stuff up. It interprets and applies the Word.

Edwin

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

I would question whether that is a proper understanding of authority as it applies to the Bible, Tradition, or The Magisterium. I haven’t seen a stake and faggots in court yard at St. Peters any of the times I was there. If the Church can “impose” belief it would destroy the concept of free will leaving one with no choice in a matter. The fact that there may be consequences of not accepting certain pronouncements and interpretation is a whole nother matter. Authority has no power unless it is accepted. How many protestants scatter when the Church roars? Not many I would say. Least not anymore.

I believe the word “impose” here is being used in the moral, and not physical sense. That is, the Church is not going to physically force someone to believe something-- that’s impossible (and immoral). However, the Truth does impose on our conscience. That is, Truth is more than a mere proposition. It is something-- nay, Someone-- which we must take most seriously, for there are real consequences to our choices. So, while we are physically and legally (in some instances) free to reject some of the “proposals” of the Church, we are not morally free to do so. In other words, we have no “right” to disregard Truth.

 

[Contarini]

Kinda makes you wonder if the Pope read it after someone else wrote it for him. Whatever happened to the Magisterium of the Church as being one of the three teaching authorities? Why downplay everything authoritative and replace it with conscience?

According to Dei Verbum, the Magisterium is an authority only as the servant of the Word. It is not an independent authority. That I think is what the Pope is saying. The conscience receives and applies the Word under the guidance of the Magisterium.

The idea that the “three teaching authorities” are equal is an invention of Catholic apologists, as far as I can tell. Dei Verbum quite clearly says otherwise.

In fact, it’s surely misleading to say that Scripture and Tradition are “teaching authorities.” Scripture is an authority in the medieval sense–an authoritative text. Tradition is an authority in the sense that it is the transmission of authoritative teaching. But only the Magisterium is referred to as a “teaching authority” in the sense of something that actively engages in teaching (“magisterium” means “teaching authority” after all!). And a teacher is always subordinate to what he teaches (if he is a good teacher).

Edwin

Edwin

 

[JLSacred]

I think our Holy Father is a deep philosopher and man with mystical insights. I love him very much and think he is a gift from God of the highest order.

 

[cor]

According to Dei Verbum, the Magisterium is an authority only as the servant of the Word. It is not an independent authority. That I think is what the Pope is saying. The conscience receives and applies the Word under the guidance of the Magisterium.

That sounds palatable to me.

The idea that the “three teaching authorities” are equal is an invention of Catholic apologists, as far as I can tell. Dei Verbum quite clearly says otherwise.

I’ve seen the magisterium referred to as the “ecclesiastical magisterium” suggesting that there could be other magisteriums (I know you were referring to Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium above). I’ve also seen some Catholics say that theologians are a magisterium in addition to the ecclesiastical magisterium. I kind of like that idea, but I’m guessing the magisterium wouldn’t

 

[rescath]

Res,

I don’t know much about phenomenology, but I’d also like to learn more about it. It seems like it can either be good or bad. For instance, it’s my understanding that Deitrich Von Hildebrand was a phenomenologist, but he was solidly traditional. Pope Pius XII called him a 20th century doctor of the Church. Are you familiar with Von Hildebrand? But then again, JPII was apparently a phenomenologist, and many of his views are, well, somewhat questionable, at least in their approach if not their substance. If you know of any resources to learn more about this topic, please pass them along.

I’m somewhat familiar with Von Hildebrand. It seems, however, that John Paul II and Benedict XVI were in the same school as Urs von Balthasar. I’m reading a book on him now, and it doesn’t look too promising. I’ll report back on what I find out. Balthasar was part of the novelle theologie movement which was condemend by Pius XII. He had an open disdain for scholastic (read Thomistic) philosophy. He left the Jesuits at one point. Yet John Paul II wanted to make him a cardinal, but Balthasar died two days before he was to be installed. Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) helped co-found a journal Communio with Balthasar.

There was a school of phenomenologists who tried to reconcile scholasticism with phenomenology, while others completely threw it overboard.

I’m intrigued by all this because on the surface his writings are very mysterious, but I know he’s an extremely intelligent man, so it can’t be just gobblediegook (sp?). I’m trying to find a rosetta stone of some kind to interpret what he means.

 

[rescath]

Happy were those Catholics who lived when popes spoke clearly, and their every word did not have to be deciphered! “Let your yes be yes, and your no be no,” says Our Lord.

I agree. Our Lord did not establish the Holy See to be some kind of academic chair in esoteric philosophy. He needs to teach in a manner – as Our Lord did – as to be clearly and plainly understood by the faithful, the sheep he’s supposed to be feeding – and should not be addressing some inner sanctum of initiates in his theological school.

At the very best this stuff is impossible to understand unless you have Pope Benedict’s own academic credentials. At the very best, it opens itself up to misinterpretation.

If I’m a liberal, I take this to mean that the Magisterium isn’t an authority but just an aid for my conscience, which I am free to accept or reject.

Last thing people need nowadays is to be reminded that they’re free to reject Church teaching.

 

[mrteachersir]

Res,

Being a phenomenologist does not automatically make a Pope less credible or less correct. All popes, when speaking as the successor to Peter on clearly identified matters of faith and morals are infallible. Outside of that, any pope can be incorrect…this is the Grace that God has given: we are ensured that Faith and Doctirne and Morals will be unchanging. On this thread alone, we are faced with Magesterium teaching in at least (as far as my count goes) three sources that the Magisterium merely teaches the Truth as it is/was revealed to it, and does not impose anything.

I suggest that the word “propose” in reference to the Magisterium’s work is too light of a word. As a teacher, I never “propose” facts or concepts…I teach them (like the Magisterium does Doctrine and Morals). When I am trying to make studying easier, I propose steps to help students (which the Church does through its disciplines and devotions). I “impose” behavior, however…which is evident through the disciplinary measures (like calmly telling a verbally abusive large male student to sit-down and be quiet-its all I am allowed to do).

Thus, the Holy Father is speaking the Truth in a manner that is peculiar to himself, be it through phenomenology or not. Words and phrases, when they speak Truth, matter little.

 

[mrteachersir]

If I’m a liberal, I take this to mean that the Magisterium isn’t an authority but just an aid for my conscience, which I am free to accept or reject.

Last thing people need nowadays is to be reminded that they’re free to reject Church teaching.

But you are free to reject or accept the teaching of the Magisterium. The problem I have with modern mainstream Christianity (my current parish included) is that its spokesmen (the pastors and priests in the front on a weekly basis) are constantly reminding everyone that they are free to reject the teachings of the Church (or the Bible if you are Protestant), because they are merely “proposals”. Every parish I’ve been to in the last 6 years has conveniently forgotten the Truth part of the Magisterium’s teaching.

The problem lies not in the philosophy, but the manner in which the teaching is carried out. When my parish priest does not condemn divorce as morally reprehensible, and says that Christ’s real intention was to create a loving relationship between two people (so divorcing someone to attain that loving relationship is OK), he is not following the Holy Father’s “fuzzy” interpretation of the authority of the Magisterium, he is rejecting Catholic Doctrine…he is believing 1) in personal interpretation of Scripture, and 2) that the Magisterium’s teachings are “proposals”, not Truth.

 

[Aramis]

One is NOT required to BELIEVE, merely to OBEY the teachings. (Submission of will and intellect).

The choice to not believe is ALWAYS there, but the choice to obey is one of mortal peril.

Further, one is required to not teach against the doctrines.

 

[rescath]

this is an interesting website for exploring the question

www.theophenomenon.com

interesting cast of characters in the top banner
I see Joseph Ratzinger, Edith Stein, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karol Wojtyla, and a host of others whose names I do not know

AND … yes, phenomenology IS a problem for Catholic theology.

There’s a lot of very interesting stuff on there including:
an analysis of “Deus Caritas Est” theophenomenon.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=17

Wojtyla on the Ego theophenomenon.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=24

there’s probably more good stuff

 

[rescath]

John Paul II was and Benedict XVI is in the line of the novelle theologie which was condemend by Pius XII in Humani Generis. Theo-phenomenology rejects Thomstic scholasticism. In their profession of devotion to the Church Fathers what they’re really saying is that they reject the systematic theology that came after the Church Fathers.

theophenomenon.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4

Indeed, it is often easier to distinguish phenomenology from other forms of philosophy by what it is not rather than by what it actually is. A decisive mark of phenomenology is its repugnance to pretentious, grandiose philosophical systems. Phenomenologists, for our intents and purposes, universally disavow the schemes and constructs of dogmatic, theoretical outlooks within philosophy. Thus, phenomenology is not a system of preset propositions from which the philosopher deduces further principles bearing truths about humanity, consciousness and/or the world. Rather, it seeks to shed those assumptions and presuppositions that underlie such systems. Phenomenology is perhaps best described as a practice or approach.

As such, it’s a real problem for Catholic theology – which has Traditionally been understood to take divinely revealed truths as premises from which theological propositions are to be derived.

I’ll quote Hans Urs von Balthasar tonight when I have time. He openly expressed his disdain for scholastic / Thomistic theology.

 

[BobP123]

One is NOT required to BELIEVE, merely to OBEY the teachings. (Submission of will and intellect).

The choice to not believe is ALWAYS there, but the choice to obey is one of mortal peril.

Further, one is required to not teach against the doctrines.

One is always required to BELIEVE items of Church doctrine. To be forced to read items of secular value, such as whether the sun revolves about Earth, need not have to be obeyed.

 

[Rach620]

I’m not sure what the problem is with this statement of Pope Benedict’s. I think it was beautifully put, speaking about vocation in intensely personal terms.

I’m not deeply schooled in theological phenomenology, but I do have a general understanding of its approach, from the works of JPII, Benedict XVI, von Balthasar, etc. I don’t see it as problematic, and I do think that it can be reconciled with scholastic theology. The approach is different, but certainly the essence which each is trying to more deeply understand is the same.

It seems that what people on this thread are having a problem with is making faith personal. It’s my perception that sometimes the ‘traditionalist’ Catholic perspective favors following Church doctrine over internalizing and understanding it. If that’s the case, then of course you’re going to have a problem with Benedict…but then again, this would indicate the need for reassessing whether the entirety of our beautiful faith is the blind adherence to doctrine, regardless of whether we actually ‘believe’ them, as that perspective would suggest.

The question seems to be–does the person really matter? To me, it sounds like the traditionalist would answer ‘no, not really’.

Why shouldn’t the Holy Father tell Catholics not to view the Magisterium as *merely *imposing dogmatic rules on them? Isn’t there a healthier understanding of the Magisterium? That is, seeking to deepen our understanding of doctrine and incorporate it so much into our own selves that our consciences act in accord with it? That way, our beliefs as Catholics are much more than things external to ourselves, they become part of us and how we view the world. I think that is the most beautiful approach to theology, which is, after all, according to that medieval scholastic St. Anselm, ‘faith seeking understanding’.

There is no evidence *anywhere *in Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger’s work that he thinks Catholics should follow their own *uninformed *consciences, whether or not those accord with the Church’s teachings. He cherishes our faith in its entirety; just because he’s not another Aquinas (it’s been 800 years since St. Thomas; we’re allowed to alter our approach because of new circumstances surrounding human life) doesn’t mean he’s not going to do much good for the Church.

Even look at his name choice–Benedict, Patron of All Europe whose monastic Rule would be the source of the revitalization of Europe at the dawn of the Middle Ages. Our current pope’s goal certainly is not to abandon that Tradition, but to call us each personally back to it in a meaningful way. It’s beautifully and dynamically orthodox–and this should be what really matters.

 

[Rach620]

John Paul II was and Benedict XVI is in the line of the novelle theologie which was condemend by Pius XII in Humani Generis.

I was skimming the encyclical to see what you might have been referring to, but couldn’t find anything applicable to this situation in which Pius XII condemned all of nouvelle-theologie. There were particular doctrinal issues he addressed, but nowhere that I found in which he outright rejected all of phenomenology.

I know this might be a sticky subject on this forum, but wouldn’t this statement have to be read in light of later events (namely, Vatican II) which have historical/doctrinal continuity with Pius XII, though perhaps differ in approach? Or is this the ‘whole problem’ with JPII/BXVI…that they were big players in Vatican II?

Theo-phenomenology rejects Thomstic scholasticism. In their profession of devotion to the Church Fathers what they’re really saying is that they reject the systematic theology that came after the Church Fathers.

It might reject the scholastic approach, but certainly does not reject the truths of the faith which the scholastics did so much to expound upon. The language is different; the task is the same.

Quoted: *Indeed, it is often easier to distinguish phenomenology from other forms of philosophy by what it is not rather than by what it actually is. A decisive mark of phenomenology is its repugnance to pretentious, grandiose philosophical systems. Phenomenologists, for our intents and purposes, universally disavow the schemes and constructs of dogmatic, theoretical outlooks within philosophy. Thus, phenomenology is not a system of preset propositions from which the philosopher deduces further principles bearing truths about humanity, consciousness and/or the world. Rather, it seeks to shed those assumptions and presuppositions that underlie such systems. Phenomenology is perhaps best described as a practice or approach.

• As such, it’s a real problem for Catholic theology – which has Traditionally been understood to take divinely revealed truths as premises from which theological propositions are to be derived.

Catholic theology is ‘faith seeking understanding’. All theologians should be striving to understand the Truth. But it’s important to remember that the scholastic system is not the Truth itself–nor would it have ever claimed to be!

I see phenomenology as an attempt to make theology personally relevant. It is an approach which recognizes that especially in the modern age, a merely dogmatic approach to faith does not foster in each person the depth of belief which is necessary for them to stand up to the temptations and challenges of the world. This doesn’t mean that it throws away dogma, but that it tries to understand it in a new way, a way which will be compelling for someone and which will bring them to a deeper commitment to it.

I think you’d be hard-pressed to find even a scholastic who would call the Truth a set of ‘premises from which theological propositions are derived’. I just think of St. Thomas, especially when he writes about sacred doctrine and the task of the ‘Christian wise person’ (ie, theologian). It’s not this academic task that can be accomplished by distancing yourself from the subject. The subject is the very Word of God! Christ–who has spoken throughout history to all men! He’s much more than a ‘premise’!

Perhaps there’s a reason the *Summa Theologiae *wasn’t finished by Thomas himself…a little phenomenology in action in the 1270s, perhaps? The story goes that Aquinas had a mystical vision, realized all his work amounted to nothing in the sight of the ultimate reality of God, and stopped writing.

We must have the greatest of love and respect for God, the source of all Truth, as much more than dogma or philosophical/theological propositions–He is a Truth which can be accessed from every part of our being and existence. That’s what this pope and JPII are both trying to get at, I think

 

[gorman64]

From The American Ecclesiastical Review, Pope Pius XII and the Theological Treatise on the Church, The Catholic University of America Press, December 1958:

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5086

These three factors, acting together, produced a condition in which religious books by some rather influential Catholic authors tended, during the first half of the twentieth century, to speak of a kind of super-Church, a Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, in some way distinct from and superior to the visible Catholic Church over which the Bishop of Rome presides as visible head and as the Vicar on earth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Basically, it was that condition which the late and great Sovereign Pontiff was called upon to remedy. And, by the force of his most important writings and allocutions, he fulfilled this task most admirably.

Amidst the literally thousands of entries in the official Acta of Pope Pius XII there are hundreds of documents in which he set forth teaching about the nature and the dignity of the Catholic Church as the true Church of Jesus Christ. As a result any full-scale study of the effects of Pius XII in the field of ecclesiology would have to be expressed in a rather formidable volume. Yet, among the very numerous documents which would certainly have to be scrutinized in such a work, there are a very few statements of his which had particular moment for all theologians interested in the treatise on the Church. He seemed to have a special affection for these declarations. I can think of no more effective way of honoring his beloved memory in this issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review than that of bringing together his most striking teachings about the Church he loved so much and guided so well.

**Mystici Corporis Christi **

The Mystici Corporis Christi and the subsequent encyclical, the Humani generis, may well go down in history as the two most important doctrinal statements issued by Pope Pius XII during the course of his long and glorious reign as Christ’s Vicar on earth. Both exercised an extraordinarily powerful regulatory influence within the tractatus de ecclesia Christi
.
Pope Pius XII issued the Mystici Corporis Christi on June 29, 1943. The first and the most fundamental contribution it made to Catholic thought on the Church is contained in the following sentence:

If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ — which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church — we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression “the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” — an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.

After this strong and eminently clear declaration, there could be no shadow of excuse for any tactic tending to depict the Mystical Body of Our Lord as in any way distinct from or superior to the visible Catholic Church, the religious society over which the Vicar of Christ rules as the visible head. The expression “Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” appears in this ringing pronouncement of Pius XII as the description and even as the definition of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church. The Mystici Corporis then gives the coup de grace to the teachings that the true Church of Jesus Christ is something other than a visible or truly organized society in this world by the following pronouncement:

Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.

 

[Rach620]

From The American Ecclesiastical Review, Pope Pius XII and the Theological Treatise on the Church, The Catholic University of America Press, December 1958:
…
Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.

It would be helpful if you’d offer an explanation/interpretation of the quotes you post, instead of just expecting them to speak for themselves.

The key word here is merely. You’d be hard pressed to prove that Benedict XVI or John Paul II believe the Church to be any kind of mere phenomenon.

Besides, this doesn’t exactly address the idea of a new approach to theology which traditional scholastic-boosters are taking issue with. That passage speaks to potential problems regarding the Vatican II declaration that “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” and its interpretation, but it does not speak to condemning an entire *approach *to theology.

As long as JPII and BXVI and St. Edith Stein and so many other Catholic phenomenologists are pursuing the same Truth of Christ, not compromising in the least on doctrine but instead offering a new, (in my opinion) more compelling explanation for it, what is the problem? Same Truth, different approach…