The following is a purely doctrinal inquiry (and the consensus of the respondents will not determine the truth of the matter), not related to the philosophical theme of this blog.
Could someone please explain how is it that the 'living magisterium' allows for perennial doctrine if the doctrine's "perenniality" is secured by the "living" or "present" magisterium whose interpretors change by the generation or each papacy? Does that not leave the magisterium of St. Pius XII for example as magisterium only insofar as the current "living magisterium" sees it as magisterium? What one generation or "living magisterium" may see as doctrine and perennial another "living magisterium" later on down the road may choose to interpret as not being part of the perennial magisterium. This seems to me to be problematic.
It seems to me to be the the difference between having a constant steel "i" beam throughout time where one magisterium/pontiff states something as eternally true in 1910 is still true today VS. welding "i" beam pieces 're- interpreted' by those who are currently living and teaching in the Church. We trust the Holy Spirit to line them up perfectly in the second case.
What is the historical origins of each school of thought's existence? Is the claim that the "living magisterium" is a product of 20th century and subjectivism a fair claim?
I would love to talk to Pope Benedict on this one but if any of you would like to leave your opinion, please feel free to do so!
What sparked the thought? http://www.dici.org/en/documents/exclusive-magisterium-or-living-tradition-fr-gleize-denounces-a-false-dilemma/
Could someone please explain how is it that the 'living magisterium' allows for perennial doctrine if the doctrine's "perenniality" is secured by the "living" or "present" magisterium whose interpretors change by the generation or each papacy? Does that not leave the magisterium of St. Pius XII for example as magisterium only insofar as the current "living magisterium" sees it as magisterium? What one generation or "living magisterium" may see as doctrine and perennial another "living magisterium" later on down the road may choose to interpret as not being part of the perennial magisterium. This seems to me to be problematic.It seems to me to be the the difference between having a constant steel "i" beam throughout time where one magisterium/pontiff states something as eternally true in 1910 is still true today VS. welding "i" beam pieces 're- interpreted' by those who are currently living and teaching in the Church. We trust the Holy Spirit to line them up perfectly in the second case.
What is the historical origins of each school of thought's existence? Is the claim that the "living magisterium" is a product of 20th century and subjectivism a fair claim?
I would love to talk to Pope Benedict on this one but if any of you would like to leave your opinion, please feel free to do so!
What sparked the thought? http://www.dici.org/en/documents/exclusive-magisterium-or-living-tradition-fr-gleize-denounces-a-false-dilemma/
Hello, John. This is an intricate question indeed. I liked the way Fr Gleize framed the problem in terms of a false dilemma to be resolved by bearing in mind a commonly overlooked distinction. However, I am not entirely convinced of his conclusion, seeing as how it is possible to accept Vatican II as part of a living magisterium, which is both present and past, and thereby not risk becoming protestant.
ReplyDeleteI like the "I" beam analogy, but since we are talking of a living magisterium, I would like to suggest thinking of the subject in terms of a living being; make it a rational living being. The maturing individual undergoes numerous physical changes throughout its life time. It's cells at age 20 are not the same cell that made up its body at age 5. Yet it is the same individual, because it's identity is not determined by the juxtaposition or composition of parts. The principle of its unity throughout time is its soul.
Now consider the same subject on the level of its consciousness. At age 25 the subject may remember clearly some event in his live at age 7, say stealing an apple and being punished for it. At age 70 he may remember getting his first job after college at age 25, but not stealing an apple at age 7 or getting punished for it. The 70 year old man is still the same living person, although elements of his subjectivity have changed. He is the boy who stole the apple and the young man who got his first job after college at age 25.
At all these stages of life he views life differently, more maturely with age, gives more importance to some things and less importance to others.
The Church as a mystical body is also a body in time, it has memory that grows with time, temporal experiences that inform its temporal judgment, and it endures external factors that affect the relevance or significance of the issues it deals with at any given time. And moreover, let's not leave out the fact that the soul of this Church is the soul of Christ (Mystici Corporis), and that it is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit -- dogmas of faith that should not be overlooked.
That was all very general. To be more specific, one would have to present the a specific case where this to test the theory to see whether or not it still leaves us with the supposed dilemma.
John, Ecclesiology is not my speciality. These are just some thoughts that come to mind regarding the problem as you presented it here and as it was Fr Gleize dealt with it in the article you referenced at the end of this post.
Thanks for entertaining a very thought provoking question. God bless!
John, here is a video that seems relevant to the discussion. What are your thougthts?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIlSH2ZYxGU
James thank you so much for your informative response.
DeleteI did indeed see that video before I read Fr. Gleize's article about subjectivity/objectivity of the Church. I like the analogy of the living being and his awareness changing, but you are right, many of the problems still remain. For example, this viewpoint reminds me of the personal identity issues which Paul Grice rises with "fuzzy experience theory" (summary-http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/identity/intro_joe.html) or a very Lockean account of identity based on memory. The reason I have a hard time seeing the identity in an Aristotelean way is because I'm not sure how propositions themselves can be included in the "growing being" without making the propositions themselves the bearers of the truth. I can definitely see how certain structures applying the propositions could evolve (discipline vs. doctrine) but it would worry me to say that a certain proposition x is only valid because it has been "imported" be free choice/responsibility of the present magisterium, but not out of the propositions perennial validity. In "fuzzy experience", one's memory of a certain event changes overtime to a slightly different account--but there was still just one way that the event took place. Anyways, I will continue to look for more. Thank you for your response it has lead me to look at the problem another way. God bless!
Cardinal Kurt Koch said the following in an interview with ZENIT yesterday:
ReplyDeleteZENIT: In regard to Vatican Council II, the discussion is very timely today on the concept of the "hermeneutics of continuity." Is it not the case that the two "political" extremes of the Church, that is traditionalists and progressives, are both committing the same error, in the sense that they consider the Council a "break"?
Cardinal Koch: Yes, but precisely for this reason the Pope calls his interpretation of the Council not "hermeneutics of continuity" but "hermeneutics of reform." It is a question of renewal in continuity. This is the difference: the progressives profess a hermeneutics of discontinuity and break. The traditionalists profess a hermeneutics of pure continuity: only that which is already noticeable in the Tradition can be Catholic doctrine, therefore, practically, there cannot be a renewal. Both see the Council equally as a break, even if in a very different way. The Holy Father has questioned this understanding of the conciliar hermeneutics of the break and proposed the hermeneutics of reform, which unites continuity and renewal. The Holy Father presented this hermeneutics already in his first Christmas address in 2005 and thus gave precise indications on how to interpret the Council and make it fruitful for the future.
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=122051
Delete