AmericanPapist Comments
A blend of Kolvenbach and Arrupe?? I bet that was *just* what the Holy Spirit was impressing on the electors . . .
Okay, there's "inculturation" a la Matteo Ricci (in . . . Japan! which, I know, was controversial at the time), of practice and then there's "inculturation" today, of teaching bordering on doctrine as well as practice. The Church has always "inculturated", in a sense, in the first way, but not in the second.
Well, I'm ready to be pleasantly surprised, but not expecting it. Will pray for Fr Nicolas and the huge job he now has, and for the health of his order.
Just to be clear: "inculturation" as it is used in the theological academy today means little more than "syncreticism." Just watch...
Fr. Philip, OP
Yes, exactly, Father, that's why I put the word in quotes.
Mmmm, you Dominicans must be having a little chuckle (or is it a head-shake?) this evening . . . not without charity of course . . .
Delighted with this election. Nicolas is one of the most impressive people I met in Japan. The Jesuits seem to have a larger selection of talented candidates to choose from than the Cardinals in the papal election.
Wow SoVII, that's a pretty arrogant statement - I thought that the Jesuits had been enjoined to contemplate humility. I understand that you don't like the Holy Father, but that sort of slam is beneath the dignity of a high school sophomore, let alone someone of your age and stature.
"Spirit of Vatican II" indeed!
I don't know about the new General, and I hope for the best, but I think Pope Benedict made a mistake to accept Fr Kolvenbach's resignation. This possibility was not foreseen by St Ignatius. So, such an innovation is not the way to call the Jesuits back to their roots in humility and obedience to the Holy Father...
Oh my remark above was not intended as a slam at Ratzinger, created Cardinal by Paul VI, but rather at the quality of John Paul II's creations. Notoriously, he rewarded yes-men and undercut bishops who showed any signs of leadership.
I do hope the new General calls a halt to the papal blackmail based on the most literalistic reading of Ignatius Loyola's counter-reformation principles. The Jesuits would ill serve the papacy by becoming yes men and doormats. That would not be Gospel humility at all.
One thing I would love to see Fr Nicolas do is tell the CDF to leave the Jesuits alone. The names of Sobrino, Dupuis, de Mello, Haight, McNeill, etc. are a roll-call of honor for the Jesuits and of shame for the CDF.
Interesting, Fr. O'Leary. Would you say that there's any place for moderating the work of Catholic theologians at all? Should the CDF have any role to play in determining what is, and what is not Catholic teaching?
If so, what sort of theologians, or what sort of theological statements should be criticized as non-Catholic?
If not, how would any sort of orthodoxy be maintained? What would stop a Catholic theologian from teaching that, say, Christ is not the unique Son of God and the vehicle of salvation?
The charter of the reformed CDF was laid down by Paul VI on Dec 7, 1965. It has not been observed by the CDF, which continues to operate in a medieval style.
Theology is a self-regulating discipline, fundamentally. The magisterium should provide encouragement and perspective, not constant carping and obstructionism.
The Society of Jesus is a greater storehouse of theological expertise than the CDF and should be entrusted with the regulation of its own affairs. Because of right wing fantasies taken seriously by the Vatican, the Society of Jesus has been the object of outrageous bullying ever since the Pope imposed Fr Dezza as interim General.
Actually, the CDF operates under the norms of Pastor bonus, of 1996, not some charter from the 60's.
If theology is a "self-regulating discipline" why did Christ entrust the "keys" to Peter, a fisherman, rather than a board of theologians? How did theologians "self-regulate" the theological excesses of Marcion, Arius, Berengarius, Luther, Calvin, Loisy, Blondell, Kung, Teilhard... Srf-regulation doesn't work well in any field, why should it work in theology?
Is the Society apart from the Church, or responsible to it?
"Theology is a self-regulating discipline, fundamentally."
Perhaps. But did the theologians pay reparations when the Arian Goths rampaged through Europe and North Africa?
Why, gosh, no, they didn't. It seems the people of God had to pay instead, with their religious freedom, their property, their lives, and possibly (if you were some poor rampaging Goth) their souls.
So let the Holy Father know when the Catholic theologians of the world start giving people faith refunds in reparation for their brethren's more ill-advised teachings, eh? Then I'm sure the CDF will be glad to let theologians self-regulate.
Goodness. Of course the Pope should be appointing men loyal to him.
It is the duty of each and every Christian to be soldiers of the Pope who is the visible head of the Church and Christ's representative on earth. Truth.
Does Spirit of V2 mean to imply that being in opposition to the Pope is a suitable qualification for elevation to the Sacred College?
The Jesuits do indeed have a roll call of honor, but with some different names than "Spirit of Vatican II" mentioned:
St Ignatius
St Francis Xavior
St Peter Canisius
St Alphonsus Rodriguez
St John Brebeuf
St Isaac Jogues.... just to name a few. There are many more. But I suspect that the names "Spirit" mentioned will end up as a footnote in some history books that in coming centuries no one will ever read.
" Actually, the CDF operates under the norms of Pastor bonus, of 1996, not some charter from the 60's."
Perhaps a comparison of those norms, no doubt influenced by Ratzinger, with the charter of renewal issued by Montini, would show where we lost the thread of the Council?
"If theology is a "self-regulating discipline" why did Christ entrust the "keys" to Peter, a fisherman, rather than a board of theologians?"
The keys concern the governance of the Church. I never said it was the charism of theologians to govern the Church.
" How did theologians "self-regulate" the theological excesses of Marcion, Arius, Berengarius, Luther, Calvin, Loisy, Blondell, Kung, Teilhard..."
Well Marcion was refuted by sound arguments from the theologians Tertullian and Origen. Blondel was a perfectly orthodox Catholic philosopher. Teilhard was silenced by the Vatican to the great detriment of theological reception and critique of his work. Kung's views have been discussed and evaluated within Catholic theology quite adequately; the Vatican bullying has brought little clarity. It is a shame that such creative and deeply Christian thinkers are demonized and slandered by the nervous Nellies that seem to hold sway over the CDF's reactions.
The excommunication of Loisy was a mistake; he was quite orthodox at the time and his views should have been taken up and discussed by Catholic theology -- indeed, the views of L'Evangile et l'Eglise are more or less common currency in Catholic theology today. Later Loisy became unorthodox, perhaps as a result of his expulsion or perhaps because of the trauma of World War I.
Arius and Arianism were condemned at Nicea, but that would have been quite ineffectual without the theological refutation of his views mounted by Athanasius and others. The demonization of the individual Arius was probably regressive and took away from the trustworthiness of the theological arguments.
"Srf-regulation doesn't work well in any field, why should it work in theology?" On the contrary, self-regulation is the norm in all scientific disciplines.
The oath Berengarius was forced to sign is one of the crudest interventions of authority in the history of theology. They should have appreciated the Augustinian inspiration of his theology more generously.
Luther and Calvin are among the top ten great Christian theologians, a resource for good Catholic theology as well. Today their principal theological claims are on the table of Catholic discussion, as one sees from the Joint Agreement on Justification, Augsburg 1999. Things that alienate us in Calvin, such as his ideas on Predestination, are actually things he shared with Catholics and with St Augustine.
"Is the Society apart from the Church, or responsible to it?"
It is a creative movement within the Church and its charism is at the service of the Church. But the Church has often had trouble putting up with this charism, and the nervous Nellies of th
It is a creative movement within the Church and its charism is at the service of the Church. But the Church has often had trouble putting up with this charism, and the nervous Nellies of the past even got the Pope to suppress the Society at one time, going against his own conscience.
" Actually, the CDF operates under the norms of Pastor bonus, of 1996, not some charter from the 60's."
Perhaps a comparison of those norms, no doubt influenced by Ratzinger, with the charter of renewal issued by Montini, would show where we lost the thread of the Council?
"If theology is a "self-regulating discipline" why did Christ entrust the "keys" to Peter, a fisherman, rather than a board of theologians?"
The keys concern the governance of the Church. I never said it was the charism of theologians to govern the Church.
" How did theologians "self-regulate" the theological excesses of Marcion, Arius, Berengarius, Luther, Calvin, Loisy, Blondell, Kung, Teilhard..."
Well Marcion was refuted by sound arguments from the theologians Tertullian and Origen. Blondel was a perfectly orthodox Catholic philosopher. Teilhard was silenced by the Vatican to the great detriment of theological reception and critique of his work. Kung's views have been discussed and evaluated within Catholic theology quite adequately; the Vatican bullying has brought little clarity. It is a shame that such creative and deeply Christian thinkers are demonized and slandered by the nervous Nellies that seem to hold sway over the CDF's reactions.
The excommunication of Loisy was a mistake; he was quite orthodox at the time and his views should have been taken up and discussed by Catholic theology -- indeed, the views of L'Evangile et l'Eglise are more or less common currency in Catholic theology today. Later Loisy became unorthodox, perhaps as a result of his expulsion or perhaps because of the trauma of World War I.
Arius and Arianism were condemned at Nicea, but that would have been quite ineffectual without the theological refutation of his views mounted by Athanasius and others. The demonization of the individual Arius was probably regressive and took away from the trustworthiness of the theological arguments.
"Self-regulation doesn't work well in any field, why should it work in theology?" On the contrary, self-regulation is the norm in all scientific disciplines.
The oath Berengarius was forced to sign is one of the crudest interventions of authority in the history of theology. They should have appreciated the Augustinian inspiration of his theology more generously.
Luther and Calvin are among the top ten great Christian theologians, a resource for good Catholic theology as well. Today their principal theological claims are on the table of Catholic discussion, as one sees from the Joint Agreement on Justification, Augsburg 1999. Things that alienate us in Calvin, such as his ideas on Predestination, are actually things he shared with Catholics and with St Augustine.
"Is the Society apart from the Church, or responsible to it?"
It is a creative movement within the Church and its charism is at the service of the Church. But the Church has often had trouble putting up with this charism, and the nervous Nellies of the past even got the Pop
Pope to suppress the Jesuits, against his own conscience.
Commenting by HaloScan
