Popes in theological conflict with each other?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But can non-saints be Church Fathers? Tertullian, Origen? The Church at Trent essentially defined that Tradition was found well in early Christian writings. Canonization is not necessary to this discussion, although the Church has yet to define that canonizations are infallible. Likewise, it has still to define who is among the Church Fathers spoken of at Trent. There are certain writers who may or may not be part of that group, so this indicates that Trent to not mean to define that said group. So its possible that any one of them are not truly a Church Father. There are many gray areas in Catholic leadership history. If I were Pope I would define something new every day 😃
 
thinkandmull said:
But can non-saints be Church Fathers? Tertullian, Origen? The Church at Trent essentially defined that Tradition was found well in early Christian writings. Canonization is not necessary to this discussion, although the Church has yet to define that canonizations are infallible. Likewise, it has still to define who is among the Church Fathers spoken of at Trent. There are certain writers who may or may not be part of that group, so this indicates that Trent to not mean to define that said group. So its possible that any one of them are not truly a Church Father. There are many gray areas in Catholic leadership history. If I were Pope I would define something new every day 😃
Click to expand...
Well…
 
thinkandmull said:
Pius X in *Pascendi *wrote:

**All this, Venerable Brethren, is in formal opposition to the teachings of Our predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: “In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, not to prescribe what is to be believed, but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, *not to scrutinize the depths ***of the mysteries of God, but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.”

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: “Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text…to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science…these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid.”

The Catechism of Trent says about transubstantiation:** “how it takes place we must not curiously inquire”**

Did not Aquinas do all this? He did not always agree with the Fathers, and tried to push reason as far as he could in these understandings…
Click to expand...
Of course he did - that was why he was condemned by the highest authority after his death.

Surely you realise that the Church has its factions and personality types typically drawn along the often opposing lines of Authority (“we know best, stick with the old ways”) and Reason (“but it doesn’t make sense anymore”).

Sometimes the Papcy is controlled by one type, sometimes another, rarely by someone seeing both sides of the mountain.

Perhaps we have one of the latter today in Pope Francis.
 
By “the highest authority” do you mean a bishop or the Pope??
 
So we had a a doctrinal condemnation of 219 errors by Bishop Tempier of Paris and by the Dominican Robert Kilwardby, Archbishop of Canterbury. Some of them “seemed” to have been defended in the Summa. I wonder which ones they were. In 1284 Richard Knapwell defending Aquinas’s position on the “single substantial human soul” and was condemned and excommunicated by the new Archbishop of Canterbury, John Pecham. So the first two bishops were against the Averroes supporters and seemed to include Aquinas in the condemnation, while the third bishop condemned Aquinas in favor of Averroes. So nothing was really settled.
 
On the issue of this thread: I just don’t think one can say what the limit is in trying to understand the supernatural through reason
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top