Using the Church's authority to prove the Church's authority?

[Peter_J]

I must admit that I’m impressed that you consider most of Unum Sanctam “open to criticism” many Catholics wouldn’t make that concession.

You certainly have an interesting notion of what a “concession” is. If stating the truth is “a concession” then I’ll try to make a lot more “concessions”.

BTW, have you noticed how convenient it is for you to say “Many Catholics say such-and-such”? (Almost as convenient as it would be for me to say “Many Protestants say such-and-such”. )

My view of the bull differs slightly from yours in the sense that I feel the possibly dogmatic statement is simply a summary of all the Pope has said in the rest of the document.

As Cardinal Newman said:

But since the process of defining truth is human, it is open to the chance of error; what Providence has guaranteed is only this, that there should be no error in the final step, in the resulting definition or dogma.

1. Accordingly, all that a Council, and all that the Pope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the {329} special question which he happens to be considering; his prerogative does not extend beyond a power, when in his Cathedra , of giving that very answer truly. “Nothing,” says Perrone, “but the objects of dogmatic definitions of Councils are immutable, for in these are Councils infallible, not in their reasons ,” &c.— ibid .
2. This rule is so strictly to be observed that, though dogmatic statements are found from time to time in a Pope’s Apostolic Letters, &c., yet they are not accounted to be exercises of his infallibility if they are said only obiter —by the way, and without direct intention to define.

So if we give the “unknowing” a pass on the submission requirement (which Unum Sanctam doesn’t explicitly do)

Neither do I. The only people who can go to heaven are those who are subject to the Pope’s authority.

, that still leaves the pesky Greeks he singled out that the CCC treats differently. Still a contradiction between a possibly infallible statement in a papal document and the CCC.

So, to clarify, are you saying that there are more than one “possibly infallible” statement in Unam Sanctum?

 

[Peter_J]

I would say that I include examples of Catholics doing what I’m discussing in order to avoid the charge that I’m creating straw men or purely hypothetical situations as some charge (there I go again )

I am not saying that if one or more Catholics says or does something that it becomes the official teaching of the church. I am saying that in some cases the Church needs to recognize that its words or actions have had causitive effects on its members.

I don’t accept the ecclesiology put forth by some on CAF the constantly redefines the Church from sentence to sentence to suit what the writer’s current needs are.

Fair enough, but look at it this way: if you quote something that some arbitrary Catholic said (let’s say with a “screen name” attached to it), that really doesn’t give me anything to work with (other than telling me something about your circle of friends ). Whereas if you quote a statement from a papal bull like Unam Sanctum (even if it’s a non- ex cathedra statement), or a statement from Scott Hahn, Mother Angelica, etc., or even from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia that you seem so fond of, that’s at least something. Know what I mean?

(Applying the same distinction the other way, if I were to say that Billy Graham or Pat Robertson said such-and-such, that would be a lot different than if I were to say “A Protestant friend of mine said such-and-such.”)

Stating “the church is over a billion members” and then stating “the church teaches” and then if an example of one of those teachers is given where they’ve erred “oh that’s him, not the Church” one finally ends up with a church with no members to protect its purity.

Call me naive, but I thought that we all – Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike – did that (leaving aside the negative spin you put on it)? E.g. if Billy Graham said something with which you disagree, wouldn’t you say “That’s just his opinion”? Does that mean that Protestantism has “no members to protect its purity”?

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. Here’s an extra thought that may help with the issue of “I saw such-and-such statement posted on CAF”.

Several years ago there was a conference called “Christian Unity & the Divisions We Must Sustain”, talks from which were later published in Touchstone Magazine.

The Orthodox article, written by Metropolitan Maximos (Aghiorgoussis), contained this paragraph:

“In the West, the Cross of Christ seems to be an end in itself. I remember the vacuum that I felt in my soul when I saw the play Godspell a few years ago. The play ended with the Cross and Burial of Christ. It seems that the play Jesus Christ Superstar was conceived in a similar way. This treatment is inconceivable in the spirituality of the East, for which the end of Christ’s salvation act is his glorious Resurrection from the dead and the abundant, transfigured life that gushed forth from the open tomb of the Resurrected Lord of the Christian faith.”

Surprisingly (or maybe not?) the response to this article, written by Addison H. Hart, didn’t address the question of whether Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar were deserving of such criticism, but rather said:

“I sincerely regret that the rich Christian Tradition of the West is seemingly confused here with Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar —examples merely of desiccated modernism.”

I think I could echo Fr. Hart’s sentiments: I sincerely regret that the richness of Catholicism is seemingly confused here with the website forums.catholic-questions.org, an example of “Popular Catholicism”.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. Lest I offend anyone here, let me add that I don’t have anything against Pop Catholicism. It is what it is.

 

[Non_Serviam]

You certainly have an interesting notion of what a “concession” is. If stating the truth is “a concession” then I’ll try to make a lot more “concessions”.

Based on my recent viewing of some other threads (go ahead and cringe at the “other” construction, I’ll wait ) to acknowledge that items not proclaimed infallibly might contain an error is a generous gesture and permits us to discuss them rationally. It’s nice that you recognize that saying something “might” contain an error isn’t the same as saying it “does” contain an error.

BTW, have you noticed how convenient it is for you to say “Many Catholics say such-and-such”? (Almost as convenient as it would be for me to say “Many Protestants say such-and-such”. )

If there’s situation where you believe that to be beneficial, feel free. As you stated you are less troubled by questions of (in)fallibility than Hahn or I. I’m less troubled by mentioning specific responses so long as I’m not begging the question or engaging in ad hominem arguments.

As Cardinal Newman said:

But since the process of defining truth is human, it is open to the chance of error; what Providence has guaranteed is only this, that there should be no error in the final step, in the resulting definition or dogma.

1. Accordingly, all that a Council, and all that the Pope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the {329} special question which he happens to be considering; his prerogative does not extend beyond a power, when in his Cathedra , of giving that very answer truly. “Nothing,” says Perrone, “but the objects of dogmatic definitions of Councils are immutable, for in these are Councils infallible, not in their reasons ,” &c.— ibid .
2. This rule is so strictly to be observed that, though dogmatic statements are found from time to time in a Pope’s Apostolic Letters, &c., yet they are not accounted to be exercises of his infallibility if they are said only obiter —by the way, and without direct intention to define.

We could start off by asking if this statement of Newman’s is infallible but setting that aside for the moment, it strikes me rather as postmodern than anything else.

If we take that only the words themselves are protected by infallibility, and not the definitions of the words or author’s reasons, we are simply left with empty vessels that any future reader (or catechism writer) can fill with whatever meaning they wish. Sounds suspiciously like Derrida to me.

Does that mean only the “three persons, one substance” of the definition of the Trinity is protected? If so, wouldn’t that mean trithesm is currently acceptable, given the current meanings of the word “person” and “substance”? (You and I are two persons made of human substance) Or do we end up with a situation akin to Islam where only the original formulation in the original language is protected, since a translation doesn’t always correspond to exactly the same item as the original language?

As to point 8, where does Newman get the authority to limit a Pope this way? Is there a conciliar text that defines this?

Neither do I. The only people who can go to heaven are those who are subject to the Pope’s authority.

So, to clarify, are you saying that there are more than one “possibly infallible” statement in Unam Sanctum?

I’m interested in your definition of “subject to the Pope’s authority” and how it compares with the one Boniface describes in Unum Sanctam.

Personally I don’t believe there are any statements in US that are protected by infallibility, but if I am studying Catholicism, I need to look at it from the point of view of the belief system. What I do believe is that Boniface makes clear in US just what he means by “be subject to” in case someone were to later try and twist the Latin looking for a loophole. Thus, the lack of subjection by the Greeks isn’t the reason for the definition, but rather an example of what some people are doing. Hmm, seems Boniface and I share a similar writing style.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Fair enough, but look at it this way: if you quote something that some arbitrary Catholic said (let’s say with a “screen name” attached to it), that really doesn’t give me anything to work with (other than telling me something about your circle of friends ). Whereas if you quote a statement from a papal bull like Unam Sanctum (even if it’s a non- ex cathedra statement), or a statement from Scott Hahn, Mother Angelica, etc., or even from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia that you seem so fond of, that’s at least something. Know what I mean?

(Applying the same distinction the other way, if I were to say that Billy Graham or Pat Robertson said such-and-such, that would be a lot different than if I were to say “A Protestant friend of mine said such-and-such.”)

As I said in my previous post, if there’s a benefit to you doing so, feel free-I’m about increasing understanding while getting answers to my own questions.

Perhaps one of the reasons that I point out differences between Catholics is the claim to be one. One Lord, One Faith, united as opposed to protestants or other Christian groups. Yet, trying to get a clear understanding of what the church teaches is difficult and different Catholics cite different sources for their authority-per your previous point about Traditionalists.

It is difficult to try and make sense of things and be told contradictory things by two sincere Catholics, each of whom cites what appears to be an authoritative document to prove their point.

Call me naive, but I thought that we all – Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike – did that (leaving aside the negative spin you put on it)? E.g. if Billy Graham said something with which you disagree, wouldn’t you say “That’s just his opinion”? Does that mean that Protestantism has “no members to protect its purity”?

The difference is that at least for myself, and at least some other non-Catholics that I know, we don’t say “the Church teaches” about a statement of Billy Graham. When Billy Graham is interpreting Scripture and says “the Bible teaches” some do get careless and say “the Bible teaches” when referring to Graham’s interpretation, but for the most part, they are willing to be corrected if evidence is provided to show that Mr. Graham was in error with a specific interpretation. They realize their mistake and correct it.

In doing that they don’t narrow their definition of “the Church” to exclude Mr. Graham, it remains the same. In using phrases like “the Church believes” or “the Church teaches” Catholics end up resorting to mental gymnastics to make them line up with other statements about the church. Before having to leave the first time, I had started a thread on this topic and it was becoming rather interesting: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=220546.

Taking a quick read through might clarify my issue a bit for you.

 

[Peter_J]

Based on my recent viewing of some other threads (go ahead and cringe at the “other” construction, I’ll wait ) to acknowledge that items not proclaimed infallibly might contain an error is a generous gesture and permits us to discuss them rationally. It’s nice that you recognize that saying something “might” contain an error isn’t the same as saying it “does” contain an error.

Alright, although it does make me wonder about your circle of friends.

If there’s situation where you believe that to be beneficial, feel free. As you stated you are less troubled by questions of (in)fallibility than Hahn or I. I’m less troubled by mentioning specific responses so long as I’m not begging the question or engaging in ad hominem arguments.

You could respond to my earlier statement that I once heard a Protestant ask “How can you be a Christian and not know who Jack Chick is?”

Perhaps one of the reasons that I point out differences between Catholics is the claim to be one. One Lord, One Faith, united as opposed to protestants or other Christian groups.

I believe that Catholicism is united. But that doesn’t mean that every possible question has been settled. (Note that some of these unsettled questioned may, perhaps, be settled in the future. In much the same way that “Was Mary immaculately conceived?” was an unsettled question in St. Thomas Aquinas’ day, but has since been settled.)

Plus, not every Catholic knows the Church’s teachings. Let me give you an extreme example: I’ve had Catholics tell me that the Church teaches that the Pope is infallible every time he says anything about faith and morals. (I guess we don’t need to worry to much about the question of how many ex cathedra statements there have been. Eh? )

Yet, trying to get a clear understanding of what the church teaches is difficult and different Catholics cite different sources for their authority-per your previous point about Traditionalists.

It is difficult to try and make sense of things and be told contradictory things by two sincere Catholics, each of whom cites what appears to be an authoritative document to prove their point.

Well now that’s a whole other ball of wax. If you’d like to quote a Catholic pal of yours and a Church document that backs him/her up, then more power to ya’. (Although in that case I’d have to wonder: why not just quote the Church document? Cut out the middle man, as it were.) My complaint is against Protestants who just say “I heard a Catholic say such-and-such” as though that proves something.

 

[Peter_J]

We could start off by asking if this statement of Newman’s is infallible but setting that aside for the moment, it strikes me rather as postmodern than anything else.

If we take that only the words themselves are protected by infallibility, and not the definitions of the words or author’s reasons, we are simply left with empty vessels that any future reader (or catechism writer) can fill with whatever meaning they wish. Sounds suspiciously like Derrida to me.

I think you’re reading something into Newman’s statements that isn’t there. I don’t see anything about “the definitions/meanings of words”. Rather he saying that it’s possible for one single papal bull, conciliar document, etc. to contain both an infallible statement and another statement which is false. (For example, even if Unam Sanctum contains an ex cathedra statement, that doesn’t mean that all the other statements in the bull are correct as well.)

Does that mean only the “three persons, one substance” of the definition of the Trinity is protected? If so, wouldn’t that mean trithesm is currently acceptable, given the current meanings of the word “person” and “substance”? (You and I are two persons made of human substance) Or do we end up with a situation akin to Islam where only the original formulation in the original language is protected, since a translation doesn’t always correspond to exactly the same item as the original language?

As to point 8, where does Newman get the authority to limit a Pope this way? Is there a conciliar text that defines this?

Newman doesn’t have the authority to change what the truth is; but I think that his opinion is a lot more notable that yours or mine, or any of these arbitrary Catholics you’ve been citing.

I’m interested in your definition of “subject to the Pope’s authority” and how it compares with the one Boniface describes in Unum Sanctam.

No problem.

To say that I’m subject to the Pope authority means that his authority applies to me, i.e. that I’m not outside of his jurisdiction. (Of course, I’m also subject to the authority of my own local Bishop, but that’s beside the point.)

Personally I don’t believe there are any statements in US that are protected by infallibility,

Touché.

but if I am studying Catholicism, I need to look at it from the point of view of the belief system. What I do believe is that Boniface makes clear in US just what he means by “be subject to” in case someone were to later try and twist the Latin looking for a loophole. Thus, the lack of subjection by the Greeks isn’t the reason for the definition, but rather an example of what some people are doing. Hmm, seems Boniface and I share a similar writing style.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Alright, although it does make me wonder about your circle of friends.

You’ve been traveling in some interesting circles of late as well with the Holocaust deniers and such.

Which actually helped me think of another reason why I sometimes include “a Catholic said” comments-not to tar the whole Church with their belief, but hopefully to get an answer that also addresses the other viewpoint so that if I’m interacting with them and a topic comes up-that we don’t end up rehashing the whole thing when a bit more initial precision would have addressed it.

For now the only contradictions I’m going to hold against the church are between US and the CCC-that should be plenty for the time being

You could respond to my earlier statement that I once heard a Protestant ask “How can you be a Christian and not know who Jack Chick is?”

I’d likely start with “Did the Apostles know who Jack Chick was?” “Do you think they were Christians?”

As I said, many non-Catholics clear up their thinking when a point is put to them the right way.

I believe that Catholicism is united. But that doesn’t mean that every possible question has been settled. (Note that some of these unsettled questioned may, perhaps, be settled in the future. In much the same way that “Was Mary immaculately conceived?” was an unsettled question in St. Thomas Aquinas’ day, but has since been settled.)

Plus, not every Catholic knows the Church’s teachings. Let me give you an extreme example: I’ve had Catholics tell me that the Church teaches that the Pope is infallible every time he says anything about faith and morals. (I guess we don’t need to worry to much about the question of how many ex cathedra statements there have been. Eh? )

That would solve the issue wouldn’t it? It is interesting that a number of the less “attractive” papal statements of the last 200 years aren’t made readily available online-Pius IX’s letters on democracy come to mind as a first thought-one might almost think that the Vatican was embarrassed by some of them-the way some of those 1913 articles and the opinions expressed seem to make you a bit uncomfortable as well.

Well now that’s a whole other ball of wax. If you’d like to quote a Catholic pal of yours and a Church document that backs him/her up, then more power to ya’. (Although in that case I’d have to wonder: why not just quote the Church document? Cut out the middle man, as it were.) My complaint is against Protestants who just say “I heard a Catholic say such-and-such” as though that proves something.

It does prove “something” per your previous comment about Hahn et al. It proves that these people hold a particular belief that may or may not have come from their Catholic education. If it has, whether right or wrong-it is Catholicism for them and needs to be interacted with to dialogue with them.

It is interesting to think back to the earlier periods of Catholicism, when folks weren’t literate, had little access to “official” texts and had to rely on what they were told by their Bishop or (likely more accurate for the most part) their parish priests-they effectively had no recourse to other information.

In that situation-which was the case for a long time-if incorrect teachings were being taught by the official representatives of the Magisterium-shouldn’t the Magisterium have to take responsibility for having sent them and having signed off on their fitness to teach truth? Something to ponder.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I think you’re reading something into Newman’s statements that isn’t there. I don’t see anything about “the definitions/meanings of words”. Rather he saying that it’s possible for one single papal bull, conciliar document, etc. to contain both an infallible statement and another statement which is false. (For example, even if Unam Sanctum contains an ex cathedra statement, that doesn’t mean that all the other statements in the bull are correct as well.)

The text says that the definition would be correct even if the reasons are wrong, so the reasons aren’t protected-if one removes all the surrounding contextual language and leave only the bare definition as being protected, then one has created a situation where those words can be filled with any meaning later individuals wish to give them. You’ve proved it yourself by defining “be subject to” in US in a completely different way than Boniface himself did. How is that not postmodernist literary interpretation?

Newman doesn’t have the authority to change what the truth is; but I think that his opinion is a lot more notable that yours or mine, or any of these arbitrary Catholics you’ve been citing.

Let’s set them aside and and concentrate on the contradiction between Boniface and the Catechism-you’ve been asking me to focus on official documents, so let’s do it.

No problem.

To say that I’m subject to the Pope authority means that his authority applies to me, i.e. that I’m not outside of his jurisdiction. (Of course, I’m also subject to the authority of my own local Bishop, but that’s beside the point.)

Touché.

Hence my question about infallibility being limited to the original language-the Latin (and Boniface’s example) clearly insist on active submission on the part of the “subjects”. To redefine the statement based on the broader meaning of words in English runs the risk of introducing error, as in my previous example where the modern English definition of “person” if used in the definition of the Trinity would result in tritheism.

So we now have a situation where the Magisterium claims to protect the authentic original interpretations of the Apostolic faith, but the last Magisterial document interpreting that faith gets to trump all previous Magisterial interpretations by excluding anything that would define author’s intent in the previous statements and replacing them with meanings that are compatible with current belief and practice-not exactly the way that Magisterial authority is typically explained, is it?

 

[Non_Serviam]

One more item that might be pertinent to our discussion-an official document that speaks to how “outside of the church” was authoritatively interpreted in the case of Feeneyism:

I would post it here, but the electronic version if copyrighted, so here is the URL:

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/cdffeeney.txt

A couple of relevant quotes:

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been
divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the
Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of
Christ on earth.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was
issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193
ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes
between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as
members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on
earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be
included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess
the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate
themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate
authority for grave faults committed.”

Seems to support my contention that there’s a contradiction between the previous statements and the current Catechism.

 

[Peter_J]

You’ve been traveling in some interesting circles of late as well with the Holocaust deniers and such.

Yes, I admit I had some qualms about participating in that thread, or even reading it to begin with, just as a matter of principle. (See the advice that I’ve been giving to others.)

That would solve the issue wouldn’t it? It is interesting that a number of the less “attractive” papal statements of the last 200 years aren’t made readily available online-Pius IX’s letters on democracy come to mind as a first thought-one might almost think that the Vatican was embarrassed by some of them-the way some of those 1913 articles and the opinions expressed seem to make you a bit uncomfortable as well.

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, in and of itself, doesn’t make me uncomfortable; but I am very concerned about the way a lot of Traditionalist Catholics are always trying to elevate its status – attempting, essentially, to promote to the level of e.g. the CCC.

As far as finding papal encyclicals online, you can find at least 287 of them on EWTN’s website. (I tend to think you are correct, btw, in saying that the Vatican’s website is a little more “judgmental”, as it were , with regard to which encyclicals are posted on it.)

For now the only contradictions I’m going to hold against the church are between US and the CCC-that should be plenty for the time being

Sounds good to me.

BTW, I won’t try to post a chart (or even a semi-chart) of how I see the various “status levels” (or “quotability levels” if you like) of statements made by Catholics; but I think it should be clear, at least in broad strokes, that there are different levels. The Church’s dogmatic definitions would go at the top. At the bottom would go the "I heard a Catholic say … " references. Articles of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as stuff written by Scott Hahn, Mother Angelica, Cardinal Dulles, etc., or “I heard a Catholic priest say in his homily”, would each fall somewhere in the middle. (The CCC and Unam Sanctum – or rather, one statement of Unam Sanctum – I would put in-the-middle-near-the-top.)

Needless to say, it would be difficult (and rather silly) to try to be very precise here. For example, it’s seems obviously that Dr. Scott Hahn’s writings have a higher “Quotability Level” (as it were) than some random Catholic friend of mine; but I wouldn’t want to try to say whether Hahn’s QL is higher than Mother Angelica’s. And, even supposing we could work that one out, it would be even harder to compare Hahn’s QL with the QL of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.

(Now that I’ve beaten the topic to death … )

 

[Peter_J]

It does prove “something” per your previous comment about Hahn et al.

Well sure, technically it proves something, but that something is virtually nothing. (Not that it’s all about numbers, obviously, but 1 Catholic out of the 1 billions Catholics in the world is a pretty small percentage. )

I’d likely start with “Did the Apostles know who Jack Chick was?” “Do you think they were Christians?”

As I said, many non-Catholics clear up their thinking when a point is put to them the right way.

Well, to each his own. I’d rather just steer clear of such a person. (See again this thread.) But in any case, I suspect that the Protestant in question would actually respond to “Did the Apostles know who Jack Chick was? Do you think they were Christians?” with huffiness (which, apparently, is a word).

(BTW, I mentioned before that I’ve had the experience of Catholics telling me that the Church teaches that the Pope is infallible whenever he says anything about faith and morals. What I didn’t say is that I’ve also had the experience of correcting such Catholics, and then hearing them respond with I know it’s only when he makes an ex cathedra statement; why are you telling me something I already know?

Um … to quote Jay Leno’s book of headlines, “No comment”.

)

 

[Non_Serviam]

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, in and of itself, doesn’t make me uncomfortable; but I am very concerned about the way a lot of Traditionalist Catholics are always trying to elevate its status – attempting, essentially, to promote to the level of e.g. the CCC.

As far as finding papal encyclicals online, you can find at least 287 of them on EWTN’s website. (I tend to think you are correct, btw, in saying that the Vatican’s website is a little more “judgmental”, as it were , with regard to which encyclicals are posted on it.)

Agreed that it wasn’t the CCC, but it did pull together nice summaries of authoritative documents, and provide what can easily be described as a “safe” interpretation of them-not many theological mavericks got to write for that publication.

At the very least it for me counts as an equal “something” to Hahn.

I know about the encyclicals hosted there, but I have had the experience of Catholics not accepting anything on the web whose URL didn’t start with www.vatican.va sigh Makes it tough to have a discussion about them. Glad you are more accepting.

Sounds good to me.

BTW, I won’t try to post a chart (or even a semi-chart) of how I see the various “status levels” (or “quotability levels” if you like) of statements made by Catholics; but I think it should be clear, at least in broad strokes, that there are different levels. The Church’s dogmatic definitions would go at the top. At the bottom would go the "I heard a Catholic say … " references. Articles of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as stuff written by Scott Hahn, Mother Angelica, Cardinal Dulles, etc., or “I heard a Catholic priest say in his homily”, would each fall somewhere in the middle. (The CCC and Unam Sanctum – or rather, one statement of Unam Sanctum – I would put in-the-middle-near-the-top.)

Needless to say, it would be difficult (and rather silly) to try to be very precise here. For example, it’s seems obviously that Dr. Scott Hahn’s writings have a higher “Quotability Level” (as it were) than some random Catholic friend of mine; but I wouldn’t want to try to say whether Hahn’s QL is higher than Mother Angelica’s. And, even supposing we could work that one out, it would be even harder to compare Hahn’s QL with the QL of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.

(Now that I’ve beaten the topic to death … )

It seems we’ve done a pretty good job working through this over on the “heretic” thread. I’m guessing you may not agree with all of my conclusions, but I imagine at the least it gives you an idea why I’m not comfortable signing over the unquestioned obedience that the church demands to those who wish to join.

Also if Boniface can print up US to meet his needs, then others can amp up the level of authority beyond what Christ meant it to be, can’t they?

So are we going to discuss Victor, or is there something else you want to look at?

 

[Peter_J]

The text says that the definition would be correct even if the reasons are wrong, so the reasons aren’t protected-if one removes all the surrounding contextual language and leave only the bare definition as being protected, then one has created a situation where those words can be filled with any meaning later individuals wish to give them. You’ve proved it yourself by defining “be subject to” in US in a completely different way than Boniface himself did. How is that not postmodernist literary interpretation?

Problem with this is that you haven’t told me where in Boniface’s writings I should look to find his ‘special definition’ of the phrase “subject to”.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Problem with this is that you haven’t told me where in Boniface’s writings I should look to find his ‘special definition’ of the phrase “subject to”.

He provides two examples:

Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’

This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God

Both examples he gives are of active resistance to papal authority, rather than active submission, which is the common meaning of the Latin word *subesse *translated “be subject to” but with an active meaning, more like the contemporary meaning of “submit”.

It is only by excluding the examples that Boniface provides that the term can be semantically void and given the passive meaning you propose.

 

[Peter_J]

Both examples he gives are of active resistance to papal authority, rather than active submission, which is the common meaning of the Latin word *subesse *translated “be subject to” but with an active meaning, more like the contemporary meaning of “submit”.

Alright, I think I understand better now what your argument is.

Certainly I concede that saying that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are submissive to the Pope, is different from saying that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are subject to the Pope.

More to the point, if subesse ought to be translated as “submit to”, then I would say that we must conclude that the statement in Unam Sanctum is plainly false.

However, I’m not entirely convinced that subesse ought to be translated as “submit to” rather than “be subject to”. I’m no Latin scholar, but the sources that I’ve looked at (Cassell’s New Compact Latin Dictionary, plus some websites) translate the verb subsum/subesse as “to be under” and “to be subject” (along with some unrelated meanings like “to be near” and “to exist”).

Besides, I don’t recall ever seeing a translation – whether pre- Vatican II or post- Vatican II – of Unam Sanctum that renders subesse as “submit to”. For example, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia has:

“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff”

 

[Non_Serviam]

Alright, I think I understand better now what your argument is.

Certainly I concede that saying that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are submissive to the Pope, is different from saying that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are subject to the Pope.

More to the point, if subesse ought to be translated as “submit to”, then I would say that we must conclude that the statement in Unam Sanctum is plainly false.

However, I’m not entirely convinced that subesse ought to be translated as “submit to” rather than “be subject to”. I’m no Latin scholar, but the sources that I’ve looked at (Cassell’s New Compact Latin Dictionary, plus some websites) translate the verb subsum/subesse as “to be under” and “to be subject” (along with some unrelated meanings like “to be near” and “to exist”).

Besides, I don’t recall ever seeing a translation – whether pre- Vatican II or post- Vatican II – of Unam Sanctum that renders subesse as “submit to”. For example, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia has:

We can trade lexicons, but I notice that you didn’t address my point about the examples Boniface gives-clear examples of active submission being required. Do you acknowledge that his examples only make sense with an active understanding of subjection?

Likeswise Pius XII’s reference that I quoted in the other thread-where the submission is also understood to be active and Cardinal Cushing as well. Seems I can bring a number a number of witnesses to bear for that interpretation being accepted by more than just the 1913 editors.

Which also raises the question, if US was as discredited as it was claimed to be in the other thread, why did Pius make it the key reference in his encyclical? Seems like a bit of revisionist post Vatican 2 historiography at work.

Hmm, the divide between the a lot of the CAFers and the Traditionalist elements is starting to make a lot more sense-there do seem to be a number of theological changes that took place which people seem to want to gloss over to protect “unity of doctrine”

Which comes back around to my charge of theological post-modernism-the last Pope at the helm getting to rewrite the previous popes’ words and say they mean whatever the current one wants them to mean. Derrida would be proud.

All of which is possible because of the claim to authority the Magisterium has made for itself-if there wasn’t the need to protect the sacred cow of “infallibility” these theological circumnavigations wouldn’t be necessary.

It’s fortunate that the Apostles never made such claims for themselves or one might have to question Christianity and not just catholicism. The Apostles made mistakes and then corrected themselves when the error was pointed out to them-all without feeling a loss of their Christ-given authority.

 

[Peter_J]

We can trade lexicons, but I notice that you didn’t address my point about the examples Boniface gives-clear examples of active submission being required. Do you acknowledge that his examples only make sense with an active understanding of subjection?

I didn’t respond to the point about examples, because you didn’t present an argument.

The key statement in Unam Sanctum says that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are subject to the Pope. If, elsewhere, Boniface made another statement that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are submissive to the Pope (which is a big if, but I’ll let that pass), you can’t point to that and say ‘See? That proves that “subject” means “submissive”.’

 

[Peter_J]

Likeswise Pius XII’s reference that I quoted in the other thread-where the submission is also understood to be active and Cardinal Cushing as well. Seems I can bring a number a number of witnesses to bear for that interpretation being accepted by more than just the 1913 editors.

At least one of the 20th century Popes believed that only those who are submissive to the Pope can go to heaven. I’ll give the Traditionalist Catholics that much.

Which also raises the question, if US was as discredited as it was claimed to be in the other thread, why did Pius make it the key reference in his encyclical? Seems like a bit of revisionist post Vatican 2 historiography at work.

So are you saying, if Pope Pius didn’t see it as a discredited document, then that proves that it wasn’t a discredited document? (I don’t know whether the claim in the other thread, about it being “discredited”, is correct or not; I’m just responding to the logic you’re using here.)

Hmm, the divide between the a lot of the CAFers and the Traditionalist elements is starting to make a lot more sense-there do seem to be a number of theological changes that took place which people seem to want to gloss over to protect “unity of doctrine”

I think I agree with you, at least in part, here. Specifically, I do think there’s a certain amount of syncretism between “Traditionalist Catholics” and the rest of us Catholics. (Or, if we’re thinking specifically of those “Traditionalist Catholics” who aren’t in full communion with Rome, then you might say “false ecumenism” instead of “syncretism”.)