The Sci Fi Catholic Yak Module
He reappears! "Nice to see you again, MacLeod!" "Nice to see you (BONK! oufff!!), too."
Hi Deej--
Nice to see you back too...Xena and I were about ready to turn this into a Lay Carmelite with a Sci-Fi twist blog.. 
Hi, Sara. Good to be back. E-mail me if you're still interested in seeing Hellboy this weekend.
Glad you're back! I just finished reading van Vogt's "Slan" & thought it was the best of the early sci-fi I've read. Reading "Zombies of the Gene Pool" got me interested in the early writers. My reading's about to be seriously interrupted by the real world (*sigh*) but I hope we can look forward to a review of "The Mummy III"?
Oh, yes. I'll gladly see another good-hearted sequel to the oddball Mummy remake, especially if it has Jet Li in it. I will sorely miss Arnold Vosloo and Rachel Weisz, however.
Yes, I agree 100% about the casting. 'Though Weisz should never have agreed to the Nefertiti nonsense in #2--there must be better ways to work in gratuitous armoured chick fights than that. I mean, there's camp, and then there's De Laurentis, and and actress and her agent ought to know the difference. I'm a little puzzled that waking the terra cotta army seems to have already been spoofed by Terry Pratchett--do you know anything about that? Maybe there are other clay army books I should know?
Well, just like "Tremors IV" was set in the 19th c., I think "Mummy IV" could be set in the 19th dynasty... just think of the possibilities!!
Actually, no, that's probably a really bad idea. No guns; really hard to blow up the bad guys without at least black powder hand-cannons.
'Though Weisz should never have agreed to the Nefertiti nonsense in #2--there must be better ways to work in gratuitous armoured chick fights than that.
Really? I don't think armored chick fights need any explanation or excuse, but if you look again, I think you will find that the scene in question is actually a bikini-clad chick fight, which by its very nature stands on its own merits and can be worked into any movie for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. In this case, the scene was inserted for its educational value; before The Mummy Returns, I didn't know that New Kingdom (?) Egypt had a warrior class of bronze-bikini English ninja women, but now I do.
Who needs guns? Bring on the wire-fu!
"Who needs guns? Bring on the wire-fu!"
Ah, Deej, I used to think as you do, until I encountered...
The Gophers!!!!
900 pairs of gophers in a 1/4-acre alfalfa field. Even the inimitable sky-fu skills and voracious appetites of the family of great horned owls (plus the family of red-tails, plus the red-shoulder clan, plus nine different kinds of herpimorphic stygian dwellers, plus a particularly unexpected carnivorous jackrabbit) didn't make a dent in their urban-dense population. At first I just tried to ignore them, but after they ate the engine of my car, I agreed they had to go.
That's why ya gotta have access to guns.
Egyptian bikini ninja...were they wearing bikinis? I mostly noticed the metal masks, which didn't look very Egyptian and the weird spikes. But to be clear, it's not that I object in principle, I just don't think that particular actress should have done it. I'm much happier for the rifle-wielding Mommy who reads hieroglyphs to be, you know, Everymom, NOT the reincarnation of a princess.
But on your advice, I'll review the scene in question after the kids go to sleep.
VATICAN CITY -- The Vatican's chief astronomer says that believing in aliens does not contradict faith in God. The Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit . . .
STOP. You lost me at "Jesuit."
Moving along . . .
Why is it so hard for some people to believe that God just created (well) Us. I've heard a number of people say that to disbelieve in the existence of aliens is a sign of human arrogance. I have heard no one make the case that it's a sign of human specialness.
Theologically speaking, if God had created other rational beings, albeit not *human* beings, I wonder how that does not dilute or relativize the Incarnation. Then again, the brilliant theologian and biblical scholar, Origen, had something to say about that (viz., God the Son appearing and ministering in different realities for the salvation of humanity as well as spiritual beings), except that his work was condemned later on by an ecumenical council.
I've heard a number of people say that to disbelieve in the existence of aliens is a sign of human arrogance. I have heard no one make the case that it's a sign of human specialness.
In spite of Rev. Fune's comment to the contrary, I'm sure there's nothing wrong with disbelieving in extraterrestrials, either. The question, for now, is purely academic and will remain so until setient aliens are found, which may be never. Only then will serious theologians need to treat the question seriously, and I don't anticipate anyone will take the time to do so until such an event arises...unless someone has already and I don't know about it.
I agree with you, however, that the idea that Jesus could incarnate multiple times sounds suspiciously like heresy, something most Catholic bloggers talking about the subject don't seem to have noticed. Check out Lewis's handling of that matter in Perelandra, in which the incarnation guaranteed that all future sentients would be human in appearance. Compare that with Ray Bradbury, or Mark Twain for that matter, who imagined multiple incarnations and crucifixions, and compare that with Bradbury again, or maybe even Roger Elwood, who imagined multiple Second Comings, almost as if Jesus is going around doing a grand universal World Tour.
"Let's see...I've returned to Alpha Centauri. What's next on the schedule? Tau Ceti? Okay, gas up the Parousia Tour Bus and let's go. Hey, what about that one planet? What was it called? Earth or something? Man, I'm booked solid--they may have to wait a few millennia."
Egyptian bikini ninja...were they wearing bikinis? I mostly noticed the metal masks...
Um, were they wearing masks? I mostly noticed the bikinis.
Smiter--
I had to resort to chemical warfare when my residence was invaded by ants a few weeks back....no amount of negotiation or diplomacy worked, resorted to physical attack by human and felines (to no avail), and much to my chagrin I had to resort to the ant bait.... I was hoping I wouldn't have to use the tactical nuke as it would tend to render my residence unlivible for 10K years...plus highly irritate (and irradiate) the neighbors..
Sara, ants detest mint. A little fresh mint or mint oil spread around where they appear will soon drive them away. Not that it's not waaaaay more satisfying to "dust off and nuke 'em from orbit." But, sadly, it's hard to shoot them. "They're so small they're evading our turbo lasers." Curse you, formimorphs!!!
Serious theological opinion: I tend to the idea that, just as the Crucifixion is "once for all" redemption, so too the Incarnation is "once for all." If a being is both rational and physical, then the (human) Incarnation of DNIC avails, despite the lack of species-specific identity. I conclude this from both Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo" and Bernard's "On Grace and Free Choice", as they argue (a) that the Incarnation was planned from the beginning, even before the creation and fall of man; and (b) that the way original sin damages the will depends on the nature of will itself, not of human will; namely, that choice remains unimpaired, but that judgement is wounded. Now, if a rational, physical, non-human creature suffers from its own ancestral sin, the nature of the corruption in its will is the same, and so the redemption of Christ avails. But if original sin does not afflict this hypothetical non-human, rational, physical creature, then its will is not fallen and it needs not redemption but perfection in Christ, which, not being fallen, it will accept despite the alienness of the human shape.
The implication here is that, if we ever meet rational aliens, we are bound by the duty of charity to preach to them Christ's Gospel. Cool, huh?
Check out Lewis's handling of that matter in Perelandra, in which the incarnation guaranteed that all future sentients would be human in appearance. Compare that with Ray Bradbury, or Mark Twain for that matter, who imagined multiple incarnations and crucifixions, and compare that with Bradbury again, or maybe even Roger Elwood, who imagined multiple Second Comings, almost as if Jesus is going around doing a grand universal World Tour
These sci-fi ideas are all very similar to the argument that the theologian Origen made (+ ca. 250 A.D.). He postulated multiple appearances -- and, conceivably, multiple ministries, Crucifixions, and Resurrections -- by Christ our True God. Basically, Origen had a cyclical view of time, meaning that all things returned to their Divine Origin (heh, heh) eventually . . . and, then started all over again. He also theorized about multiple realities in which God the Son could have made another appearance.
All of this -- mind you 
-- before Bradbury or Twain or Elwood.
Origen's teaching was condemned at Constantinople II (553), although Norman Tanner's definitive collection of the ecumenical councils doesn't include the anathemas concerning him because they mayn't be genuine.
Some theologians have been trying to rehabilitate Origen as of late. (Seems to be the Rage: I heard one friend of mine tell me she thought Luther was a saint. Pope Benedict, too, seems a fan. Gack! I'll see Luther in hell before I pray to him.) Note that Origen is cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Hmm . . . I'll let God sort out this one.
Matthew - Origen was a highly speculative theologian in many ways; but tried always to do two things: (a) submit his opinions and ideas to the authority of the Church, and (b) clearly label what was solid teaching and what his own speculation. Most of what he wrote was extremely sound - see, e.g., his commentaries on the Old Testament, or his apologetic "Contra Celsum", for example. He had a tremendous influence on other Fathers over the centuries - Athanasius, Basil, and Jerome, for example, all draw heavily on Origen. And despite the fact that some (but not all) of his writings were later condemned, we must remember that he died in communion with the Church.
Given all this, yes, we can say that Origen had some pretty odd ideas, and even some quite indefensible speculations from time to time. But his "rehabilitation" is definitely not comparable to that of an unrepentant heretic, since he was neither.
Gently wrapping the hammer of truth in the warm fuzzy swaddling of peace and light, I have the honor to remain, etc etc...
Dear Smiter the Archdeacon:
Thank you for your well-poised qualifications regarding the Alexandrian scholar, Origen. I make no personal judgments on the man: In fact, he technically ranks as a Confessor of the Faith, having been tortured during one of the early Roman persecutions of Christians (under Emperor Decius, I think; but, don't quote me).
However, a few corrections, mildly offered:
First, Origen had quite a rocky relationship with his bishop -- even going so far as to accept ordination to the diaconate from another bishop. A big no-no.
Second, although an early admirer of Origen, St. Jerome completely repudiated Origen's teaching after the latter's condemnation. In my opinion, he saw the writing on the wall. The Cappadocians too, like St. Basil the Great, also expended some effort in hiding their debt to Origen and his program . . . after he became a liability, of course .
While the long list of anathemas against Origen's teachings from the Second Council of Constantinople (553) is possibly spurious, Canon 11 of that council is not. It states:
"If anyone does not ANATHEMATIZE Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and ORIGEN, as well as their HERETICAL books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned . . . by the . . . Church . . . and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the AFORESAID HERETICS . . . : let him be anathema"
So, Origen is indeed identified with some of the worst heresiarchs that the Early Church had known up until that time.
Now, one may think that that was unfair. But, it comes from an ecumenical council . . . and, there it is.
Yes, I'm familiar with the politics of Origen's life, and with those of his reputation in later centuries. His ordination by the Bishop of Jerusalem was a sore point, true; and the fallout did eventually cause him to leave Egypt. No one, however, thought that this "big no-no" was invalid or a matter of doctrine at all. For just one point of comparison, consider St. Ambrose's elevation to the see of Milan in 372 (or 374? - unsure of exact date off top of my head), when he was legally impeded from orders by having held imperial posts of justice involving consigning witnesses to physical punishment (judicial torture or death penalty, e.g.).
Second, it is necessary not to accept at face value the polemical move of defining "Origen's teaching" as a monolithic unity. For any theologian, this is not a very helpful thing; for one as subtle, creative, and insightful as Origen, it's really really not helpful. Not only must we distinguish what Origen himself distinguished (namely, between what he had received from the "apostolic deposit of faith", and what he speculated might or could be true), with Origen one must also clearly distinguish both sets of things attributed to him (in the late 4th c., and in the 6th.) And in both of these sets, there are three kinds of attributions: things he did say, now (probably) taken out of context; things he did say, but now misinterpreted or simply misunderstood; and things he never said.
St. Jerome's repudiation of "Origen's teaching" was not a repudiation of everything Origen had taught about the faith. Even after that repudiation, Jerome continued to cite (perhaps with more caution and reluctance, but still) from the more solid parts of Origen's corpus.
Finally, yes, I accept Canon 11 of 2nd Constantinople. However, in the context of what Justinian was trying to accomplish with this Council, and what he himself admitted he did and did not understand about Origen's thought, it is clear that (a) what is being condemned as heretical from the pen of Origen is not what Origen himself ever thought or taught, as e.g. Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote about Origen in his own defense; (b) the inclusion of his name in the list of heresiarchs is a political gambit, not a theologically sound move, as e.g. Pope Vigilius's refusal to accept his condemnation (except under torture and starvation) clearly shows; and (c) this point was always disputed, e.g. by Popes Pelagius I and II and Gregory the Great (!!), and the papal acceptance of the acts of the council never included the full "de-habilitation" of Origen, as Justinian had demanded (and gotten from Vigilius, clearly under duress).
Bit of a sticky wicket for all concerned, actually...
This conversation is fascinating.
Okay, that wasn't a helpful comment, but I just wanted to point that out....
"[C]onsider St. Ambrose's elevation to the see of Milan . . . when he was legally impeded from orders by having held imperial posts of justice . . . "
I grant you. But, neither Ambrose nor his teaching was ever explicitly condemned by any council, local or universal. Origen was.
"Second, it is necessary not to accept at face value the polemical move of defining 'Origen's teaching' as a monolithic unity."
Once again, I grant you.
Then again, there is that list of anathemas against specific points of Origen's teaching, only called "spurious" by scholars because it was appended to the council's acts later on. So, I don't grant that Origen's condemnation was merely a "polemical move": The people involved who wrote those anathemas had very specific problems with Origen's theology. (Too bad Tanner doesn't include the anathemas, even as an appendix, in his work.) It's been several years since I looked at them. But, I do recall reading the anathemas in concert with Origen's famous, Peri Archon; and, they did not seem to be inaccurate statements of his ideas.
"Finally, yes, I accept Canon 11 of 2nd Constantinople.
Let me be absolutely clear, because I might have given the wrong impression: I was neither implying nor saying that you denied parts of the 2nd Council of Constantinople. All I wanted to point out was that Origen was explicitly identified as a teacher of heresy by the accepted acts of the council. That has to be reckoned with, and not explained away.
If you turn over the stones of any council, the underlying politics will crawl out. That's an explanation -- but, not really a reason for the rehabiliation of someone whose teaching was condemned.
Maybe, Origen's teaching was dangerous, but not heretical. Maybe, the council shouldn't have condemned a dead man. (I doubt the Fathers of Constantinople II could have described him as contumacious or willful, since they had no personal knowledge of him!) It might be possible to rehabilitate the Man himself, while still holding to the council's reservations about his teaching.
Although arguably it has diverged somewhat from the original subject, I think this comment thread may be the best Internet discussion I've seen of what exactly Catholics should think about extraterrestrials. Let me throw in what I think is a summary of what's happened here and we'll see if we can come up with a few conclusions. Anyone can correct me if I've misunderstood something:
1. Sentient extraterrestrials would either be free from original sin or not.
2. As Archdeacon Smiter elegantly noted, Christians encountering such extraterrestrials would be under obligation to evangelize either way.
3. Some, including some Catholic bloggers, have speculated that multiple sentient species might mean multiple incarnations.
4. Dunn notes that this idea is already present in Origen.
5. This particular idea of Origen's has been specifically (?) condemned by the Church, indicating that the idea of multiple incarnations needs to be discarded.
Seems like a pretty good summary, 'though I notice Smiter's point about the Popes & the council in question hasn't been taken up by Dunn, so that discussion might not be over....
This may be a tangent at best, but thinking about "Perelandra" and the old Star Trek episode I watched last night (in which Spock was quite prominent), I ask myself: when we speculate about alien life, what are we looking for? I think Lewis wanted to imply in Perelandra that apart from the temptation situation in that story, fallen humanity in the presence of the unfallen doesn't have much basis for a relationship. I tend to think that when we speculate about unfallen aliens, we have at heart our own individual hunger to meet a finished saint; it's an echo of our desire for the communion of saints we hope to have in heaven. Most of the aliens in sci-fi aren't very alien from us at all (less alien than some of the cyberpunk we've discussed, Stross, etc.) & I can't help but think the interest in extraterrestrials bespeaks some fundamental loneliness. And by fundamental, maybe I don't mean universal--it's certainly my impression that interest in E.T.'s is only significant in certain cultures.
Most of the aliens in sci-fi aren't very alien from us at all.
That's because it's impossible for the human mind to conceive a completely alien psychology. In my experience, the mindsets of the really alien-seeming aliens are usually based on something that, once you dig down to it, is quite simple and understandable. Alienness comes from an author's ability to be tricky. Take "The Coming of the Goonga," by Gary W. Shockley, for example. The aliens are quite bizarre, and the alien narrator's actions appear inexplicable--until you realize they derive from nothing more complicated or mysterious than infatuation.
@ Xena - I don't think I've read Lewis' space trilogy; but in general, there must be some obvious and direct grounds of relationship between fallen unfallen beings, because other the Immaculate COnception makes the humanity Christ assumes from Mary too different from ours for the Cross to be redemptive for us; and because angels actively protect us and intercede for us in the heavenly choir.
@ Matthew - I'm enjoying this conversation, and I have certainly not found you to have said anything other than collegial and generous. But as Xena has noted, I'd be most interested to know what you think about the dynamic of (non-)reception of Origen's condemnation in Canon 11.
I spent a few minutes of my lunch hour today skimming the Peri Archon (On First Principles); and as I had remembered, Origen is exceptionally clear in this text on what is apostolic teaching (his three chapters on the Trinity, for example, in which no speculation appears), and what is his own ideas. He uses phrases like "in my opinion" and "as I think" and "the reader may choose to disagree" quite a lot.
Now, some of his ideas are still odd at best, and probably indefensible theologically. But nothing that he attributes to apostolic faith is of this sort. Now, if merely postulating indefensible ideas is heresy, then no theologian ever has been safe from it. For example, Augustine's late doctrine of double predestination, even though not as complete as its later development (eg by Calvin esp), is indefensible and was pretty much immediately recognized as such.
What I'm suggesting is that Origen was not a heretic, and was not ever thought to be such in his own lifetime and immediately following, despite some of his wilder flights of fancy. His witness to what is in fact apostolic deposit of faith cannot be denied. Therefore, his inclusion in the list of heresiarchs in Canon 11 cannot be simply accepted as a blanket condemnation of all of "Origen's teaching" taken without distinction. The list of 15 anathemas specific to "Origenism" are indeed orthodox faith; but it's not at all clear, either in the 3rd c., or in the 6th, or even today, that Origen taught what was attributed to him in those anathemas; or if he did teach it, that he did so as an article of faith rather than as speculation explicitly subject to the magisterium of the universal church.
Therefore, in accepting his inclusion in the list, I also condemn the specific (and clearly cacodox) ideas implied and delineated; and I condemn Origen insofar as he may have taught these ideas. But, since I don't find any clear evidence that he did, and I do find clear evidence that he taught orthodox deposit of faith, I don't condemn Origen ad hominem, in the same sense in which Vigilius, Pelagius I and II, and Gregory all also defended the memory of the great Alexandrian catechist (despite his flaws).
Gotta go eat now. Pax and smitings!
@ Xena - I don't think I've read Lewis' space trilogy; but in general, there must be some obvious and direct grounds of relationship between fallen unfallen beings, because other the Immaculate COnception makes the humanity Christ assumes from Mary too different from ours for the Cross to be redemptive for us; and because angels actively protect us and intercede for us in the heavenly choir.
@ Matthew - I'm enjoying this conversation, and I have certainly not found you to have said anything other than collegial and generous. But as Xena has noted, I'd be most interested to know what you think about the dynamic of (non-)reception of Origen's condemnation in Canon 11.
I spent a few minutes of my lunch hour today skimming the Peri Archon (On First Principles); and as I had remembered, Origen is exceptionally clear in this text on what is apostolic teaching (his three chapters on the Trinity, for example, in which no speculation appears), and what is his own ideas. He uses phrases like "in my opinion" and "as I think" and "the reader may choose to disagree" quite a lot.
Now, some of his ideas are still odd at best, and probably indefensible theologically. But nothing that he attributes to apostolic faith is of this sort. Now, if merely postulating indefensible ideas is heresy, then no theologian ever has been safe from it. For example, Augustine's late doctrine of double predestination, even though not as complete as its later development (eg by Calvin esp), is indefensible and was pretty much immediately recognized as such.
What I'm suggesting is that Origen was not a heretic, and was not ever thought to be such in his own lifetime and immediately following, despite some of his wilder flights of fancy. His witness to what is in fact apostolic deposit of faith cannot be denied. Therefore, his inclusion in the list of heresiarchs in Canon 11 cannot be simply accepted as a blanket condemnation of all of "Origen's teaching" taken without distinction. The list of 15 anathemas specific to "Origenism" are indeed orthodox faith; but it's not at all clear, either in the 3rd c., or in the 6th, or even today, that Origen taught what was attributed to him in those anathemas; or if he did teach it, that he did so as an article of faith rather than as speculation explicitly subject to the magisterium of the universal church.
Therefore, in accepting his inclusion in the list, I also condemn the specific (and clearly cacodox) ideas implied and delineated; and I condemn Origen insofar as he may have taught these ideas. But, since I don't find any clear evidence that he did, and I do find clear evidence that he taught orthodox deposit of faith, I don't condemn Origen ad hominem, in the same sense in which Vigilius, Pelagius I and II, and Gregory all also defended the memory of the great Alexandrian catechist (despite his flaws).
Gotta go eat now. Pax and smitings!
I said: The list of 15 anathemas specific to "Origenism" are indeed orthodox faith...
Clarification: I meant it is orthodox to condemn the propositions anathematized, as the council did.
Sorry, Doug, for having taken this thread far afield.
TO SMITER THE ARCHDEACON:
I do not judge Origen as a person. His influence on Theology/Biblical Studies was unquestioned. Perhaps, his memory will be -- and, should be -- rehabiliated.
His studies were admired by Athanasius, the Cappadocians, etc. But, there were problems, too. His admirer, Rufinus of Aquileia, touched up and re-wrote several sections of Peri Archon in his translation to make Origen's teaching clearer (read: orthodox) and to hide some of his more venturesome ideas. (Jerome, who himself had once translated Origen, chided Rufinus for doing this.)
On "reception": I know this has been discussed as a theory amongst theologians, but I don't see the Magisterium requiring it absolutely for a council's teaching or decisions. For me, "reception" by the Pope of Rome governs my acceptance. Whether I agree with certain aspects of a Church council is another question. Then, we enter the realm of personal opinion -- which can be taken for what it's worth. And, in fact, the Constantinople II's decision was "received": Origen's writings were destroyed; his authority was no longer invoked in debates; his disciples renounced their allegiance.
Perhaps, it's significant that Origen's condemnation comes in a canon, rather than in the doctrines. Maybe, "Origen" should be interpreted as "Origenism."
REGARDING ALIENS
Could other rational and sentient beings exist? Sure. N.B. Rational and sentient, i.e a Person.
The unspoken backdrop is the UFO controversy: Are we being visited? I used to believe, but don't, for the following reasons: (1) Nothing can travel faster than light-speed; (2) the universe is huge; (3) it would take long periods to travel between heavenly bodies.
Let's say a group of sentient, rational aliens found some way to travel at light-speed. They would still have to find some way to live for decades -- even centuries! -- while they travelled. Problem is, most things in the universe are thousands and millions of light-years away.
Worm holes? Maybe -- assuming it's even possible to travel through one and plan where it will open. Still, the hole would have to open very close to one's destination. Otherwise, you'd still have to travel decades or more to get to where you want to be. Another bump in the road: The Universe's galaxies are moving away from eachother . . . at increasing speed. That 3-light year journey just became 3,000. Oof!
If aliens exist, it raises theological problems:
(1) What does it say about the "becoming-human" of God? Why did God become human?
(2) What about the Death and Resurrection of Christ? St. Paul seems to say they had cosmic effect: How?
(3) What about the Jews?
(4) What does it mean to say that Christ will bring about a New Heaven and a New Earth?
(5) How could Christianity claim to have G
Sorry, I wrote too much.
# 5 says:
(5) How could Christianity claim to have God's fullness of revelation in a book like the Bible?
Matthew, the "touching up" of Origen's Peri Archon by Rufinus is indeed a problem. I'll back off a bit in my defense of Origen on this point, and grant that the original may have been less clear (even less orthodox) than the extant version.
When you say:
"On "reception": I know this has been discussed as a theory amongst theologians, but I don't see the Magisterium requiring it absolutely for a council's teaching or decisions. For me, "reception" by the Pope of Rome governs my acceptance."
...I'm not sure what you mean. Are you agreeing with what I said above, about Vigilius (once freed by Justinian's goons, anyway), both Pelagii, and Gregory all specifically NOT accepting the inclusion of Origen in the list of heresiarchs, while accepting Origenism (even if misnamed) as heterodox? Or have I just had way too long a day and am not tracking right?
Smiter the Archdeacon wrote:
When you say:
"On "reception": I know this has been discussed as a theory amongst theologians, but I don't see the Magisterium requiring it absolutely for a council's teaching or decisions. For me, "reception" by the Pope of Rome governs my acceptance."
...I'm not sure what you mean
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
By "reception," I mean the concept regarding the normativity of Church teaching discussed amongst theologians in the past several decades: When/how is Church teaching received by the clergy and laity? Is it binding until it is? The teaching of councils is involved -- but, also of the ordinary teaching of the Church. Oftentimes, it is used to refer to the laity receiving or not (!) receiving Church doctrine (e.g., with birth control, abortion, homosexuality, etc.). In that sense, I don't find the idea present as a theological principle in the Catholic Magisterium -- certainly, not in the case of the teaching of a Church council accepted by the Holy See. Perhaps, in the case of a council's acts . . . ? E.g., while the papal legates accepted everything else from Chalcedon, they flatly rejected -- did not receive -- the canon about the status of the See of Constantinople. (Though, later the Papacy did receive it.) Could the canon against Origen be un-received?
Obviously, though, there was some kind of Reception, even though it might not have been described as that: Several of the ancient "ecumenical" councils were in reality local councils that got universalized by their acceptance/reception by the larger Church. And, by "Church," I mean the bishops . . . and, especially the Bishop of Rome, who basically spoke for the West.
There were other standards for reception: A truly ecumenical council had to have been called by the Roman Emperor. Since there hasn't been an emperor in 500+ years, we see modern-day Orthodox Christianity's conundrum about how to convoke one. It was also important that the council be convoked with or receive the acceptance of the major bishoprics, especially Rome or Constantinople. (But, Chalcedon was rejected -- not received -- by the ancient Patriarchate of Alexandria. But, that's for another day and another cup of tea.)
Dear Smiter,
I was poking through my papers and happened across the following audience by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. It's available on-line"
http://www.vatican.va/
holy_fathe...0070425_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/
holy_fathe...0070502_en.html
Commenting by HaloScan
