"You take suffering, you take disorder and you draw a good out of them by accepting it in a penitential spirit. And I think that's the way people ought to accept the suffering that they feel under the current administration of the Church under the papacy. I'm gonna take this on, I'm gonna bear it as Christ bore the cross."
Bravo Ed, bravo.
I'm speechless at how spiritually mature, well-elaborated, and true that statement was.
As always, you were incredibly clear, helpful, and an example of how a true Catholic must act.
I do not believe the members of the Catholic church are "suffering" under the papacy of Pope Francis. But I do understand why Prof. Feser and many of his followers feel as they do. I think that the next pope will be just like Francis, so you all have a lot of "suffering" ahead that you will have accept in a "penitential spirit."
I do not believe the members of the Catholic church are "suffering" under the papacy of Pope Francis. But I do understand why Prof. Feser and many of his followers feel as they do.
That's incredibly ironic: You might feel like you are suffering, but in reality, you aren't actually suffering. What you are experience is more like pretend-suffering, which you could stop suffering if only you told yourself not to suffer anymore.
Remind me to hire you to talk to people with depression. You should also give speeches to people like Bishop Strickland, the nuns in PA who were kicked out of their home, etc. Could you convince them that they haven't been removed from their positions, (though, of course, they are NOT free to return to their old places, you know)? And the people who no longer have a Traditional Latin mass available? And how about people coming out of surgery - you could tell them they aren't in pain and don't need pain meds.
Whether they SHOULD feel hurt by Francis's actions is a different question than whether they DO feel hurt. It is incontrovertible that Francis's decisions have taken something away from them.
There are many liberal cardinals in the College of Cardinals.
True.
They want another Francis.
That's actually not quite as true. Let's distinguish between people who were considered "liberal" in 1990 and 2000, and those who constitute the radical left of 2020. There are plenty of cardinals in the former, not so many in the latter group. Some liberal cardinals are dismayed at Francis's goals.
And some are disgusted by (or afraid of) his methods and ruling style. They most definitely don't want a repeat of that.
Major Depressive Disorder is a serious mental illness. My sister suffers from it because of the death of her son.You need not "hire" me to talk to someone who is clinically depressed. Catholics who feel "depressed" by the actions of Francis are not suffering from MDD. The church is changing and they just don't like it. Bishop Strickland deserved to be removed from office because he was undermining the faith. Liberal Cardinals are "afraid "or "disgusted" by Francis? Please. That is only wishful thinking. I think liberal Cardinals very much echo what Fr. Roberto Pasolini, the new preacher of the papal household, said in an article published today in The Arlington Catholic Herald, when he said Catholics should "not be closed to change." And they should not be because more changes will indeed come.
echo what Fr. Roberto Pasolini, the new preacher of the papal household, said in an article published today in The Arlington Catholic Herald, when he said Catholics should "not be closed to change." And they should not be because more changes will indeed come.
What a bizarre thing to say! First, of course Catholics should not be opposed to ALL change: I am a sinner, I am not opposed to my becoming perfect and being received into heaven. I am not opposed to the Church's priests and bishops becoming holy. I am not opposed to a long-extended world peace. All these would be change. And there isn't anybody who thinks conservatives are against such changes.
And of course a Catholic should be opposed to SOME changes: a person acquiring a new vice, a person committing a new mortal sin, a new unjust war, an evil and deformed kind of "worship" being marketed as the best new thing.
The fact that "changes will come" is not any kind of recommendation for them: if they are bad changes, they should be resisted even if you think your resistance will not be wholly successful. At a minimum, your resisting them helps inoculate yourself against thinking evil things are neutral or good. It is for changes that are good that one should willingly embrace them and hope they occur. Anybody who urges change merely because it is change is being dumb.
Liberal Cardinals are "afraid "or "disgusted" by Francis? Please. That is only wishful thinking.
You are not very observant if you haven't noticed that a number of bishops and cardinals act cowed and work hard to avoid notice from Francis so as not to get enmeshed in his vatican political machinations, which are fairly rough.
While I think that Prof. Feser's phrasing his comments about a hypothetical condition (e.g. Pope Francis - or some future pope - explicitly declaring as ex cathedra, something clearly contradictory to settled doctrine like "Christ is a divine Person") as "that would falsify Catholicism" could be understood in its proper light, I think it is an imprudent phrasing and probably elbows right up against error. The problem is that (a) the hypothetical cannot obtain if Catholicism is true, and (b) the Catholic is obliged by his faith not to doubt dogmatic definitions of the Church. Another way of saying (b) is he cannot hypothesize their contrary, and still speak sensibly afterwards like "what that would mean". Like in all ordinary logic, accepting 2 contradictory premises entails the ability to derive ANY nonsensical conclusion, so also here. To entertain that God is God and also that God failed in his promise to protect his Church is to entertain contradictory hypotheses.
It would be MUCH better, in my opinion, when someone like Matt proposes the old "what if the pope...", to counter with this: well, let's go ahead and suppose that some pope gets it in his head that Christ is not a divine Person, and further that he wants to teach it, and that he further toys with the idea of declaring it as an ex cathedra definition. The Catholic Church's faith entails that God would intervene and do something that prevents that from happening: either God would step in and change his mind about declaring it, or change his mind about the teaching itself, or make him ill so that he cannot move forward on his intention, or let him die so that his intended declaration is never made, or any of a dozen other impediments that would stop it. To suppose that God is unable to do so is to suppose God is not what the Church has always said God is. We can firmly rely on the promise that God would never allow such a thing, and considering a "what if" like that is not proper.
I fear that the kind of phrasing like "well, that would falsify the Catholic Church", at least in practical terms, amounts to permission to doubt articles of faith. I know Feser did NOT mean it that way, and I don't in the least accuse him of any such thing. But it was still unfortunate in structure.
"The Catholic Church's faith entails that God would intervene and do something that prevents that from happening: either God would step in and change his mind about declaring it, or change his mind about the teaching itself, or make him ill so that he cannot move forward on his intention, or let him die so that his intended declaration is never made, or any of a dozen other impediments that would stop it."
This would not answer the question. The question is not "Would it ever happen" but "What if it did happen?". Feser made it abundantly clear that he was absolutely convinced it would never happen.
"To suppose that God is unable to do so is to suppose God is not what the Church has always said God is."
Well, yeah. So it sounds like you agree with Dr. Feser that if it happened this would falsify Catholicism.
"I fear that the kind of phrasing like "well, that would falsify the Catholic Church", at least in practical terms, amounts to permission to doubt articles of faith. "
How on earth does it do that? It does precisely the opposite. He is saying that if an article of faith is doubted, you effectively don't believe in the teachings of Catholicism anyway.
I had previously expressed similar worries, regarding that "falsify catholicism" line of thought.
It seems to me that it should be expressed within a very rigorous framework, perhaps a book length treatment of that touches upon natural law, biblical exegesis and finally the different types of Church teaching and that's why Dr Feser's book on Capital Punishment exists. It's a brilliant book. I recommend it to everyone here.
So I think that Prof should always point to that book especially while commenting on the integrity of Catholicism.
The only other thing I would like Prof to clarify are his thoughts on what constitutes or what could constitute legitimate debate on Church teaching.
Bellomy
I think what Tony meant was that bringing it up in that way might comfort those who are already doubting or who have already split with the Church.
Consider for example that there are some Christian sects who claim to be Catholic with the only exception being that they don't assent to one of the Marian doctrines.
Now many such people may have only a half baked idea of the Church functions and how doctrines are declared.
So upon seeing such a thing, they might just take comfort in their surface level knowledge of it instead of probing the issue further. They might think, ,"Oh traditionally the Church never thought such a doctrine etc " without having adequate knowledge of how the doctrine is actually rooted in tradition as well as the declaration process.
They may not realise that Prof actually has a very detailed commentary on this, from the natural law to Church teaching to biblical exegesis to tradition etc. That's why my only recommendation was that Prof shout out his book while broaching the subject.
Anon
Tony is one of the most interesting commentators I have encountered on this blog. He is always reasonable and respectful. In fact part of the reason why I post here, is there's a good chance Tony would respond to it if not Prof and he is someone who is also familiar with Aquinas. It's hard sometimes when one takes the time to formulate a more or less decent question and it ultimately goes without a response. So I for one am grateful that Tony engages.
"I think what Tony meant was that bringing it up in that way might comfort those who are already doubting or who have already split with the Church."
It well might, but so what? If Dr. Feser is right - and as far as I can tell, he is, you and Tony just don't like the implications of him being right - then nevertheless what he said is true.
If you concede that, then what is the point you are trying to make ?
Do you like the fact that someone might doubt the faith because of some misconception ?
No one is questioning the fact that Prof is correct.
The only thing that is being questioned is if there is a better way to express one self on this topic that doesn't give rise to misconceptions. What I suggested was that Prof recommend his book while talking about it so that people don't get any false impressions.
That is all. No one is scared of any implications. Indeed the main implication of what Prof said is precisely that Catholicism can never ever be falsified because what matters for doctrinal continuity is the Pope's declarations under extremely specific circumstances, namely ex cathedra declarations , something that is very rarely excercised. What implication would you be referring to that we are so afraid of.
What I was concerned with is people drawing out conclusions that are not at all implied by what Prof said but has come to be associated with it in some way.
"If you concede that, then what is the point you are trying to make ?"
That if it's true, and it seems to me it is, he would be wrong not to say it anyway. Some truths are uncomfortable to some people.
"Do you like the fact that someone might doubt the faith because of some misconception ?"
This is childish.
"The only thing that is being questioned is if there is a better way to express one self on this topic that doesn't give rise to misconceptions."
What I am saying is that there don't seem to be misconceptions, you just dislike admitting that what he said is clearly true. If certain things occurred the Church says cannot occur, Catholicism would in fact be false. They did not occur, so we have no reason to think Catholicism is false. That is pretty nearly exactly what Dr. Feser said.
"What implication would you be referring to that we are so afraid of."
You seem to think that the Professor's implying Catholicism might be false. If that is not what he is implying, then there isn't an issue to what he is saying anyway. If some people understand it that way, I have no idea what they were listening to, but his point is correct in any case. I mean it's not like my position is even particularly extreme. I'm just saying I agree with how the good professor originally worded it.
What I am saying is that there don't seem to be misconceptions, you just dislike admitting that what he said is clearly true. If certain things occurred the Church says cannot occur, Catholicism would in fact be false. They did not occur, so we have no reason to think Catholicism is false. That is pretty nearly exactly what Dr. Feser said...You seem to think that the Professor's implying Catholicism might be false. If that is not what he is implying,...
Here you seem to be indicating that some concerning events imagined to be possible have not happened and because of that the feared result is not a real situation. The way you have phrased it, it appears that the lack of those concerning events are merely historical facts about a certain 2000 year history, but they might still come about in the future.
This would not answer the question. The question is not "Would it ever happen" but "What if it did happen?". Feser made it abundantly clear that he was absolutely convinced it would never happen.
And here you seem to present the event as something that "would" never happen, but (perhaps)? at least in principle could happen.
I am urging that the correct response is not to answer the question, but to say "that's a wrong question." All sorts of questions are wrong questions: What if God is really a green tree frog in Nigeria? What if you don't exist in any sense. What if the number 3 has always been the number 4 all along? What if God makes promises and then breaks them?
But before I do, I'll guess that they will probably discuss: "What do you mean exactly by falsify?"; "Can any lately promulgated doctrine at all be falsified and not falsify the entire historic faith?"; "Would impeaching the authority and ex cathedra pronouncements of one modern pope, elected with dubious procedural violations regarding pre election caucusing, falsify the Catholic faith?"; "Does the entire Christian faith hinge on the papal infallibility doctrine of the Catholic Church?"
And finally, 1. "Would the said-to-be-Scripturally-predicted 'Great Apostasy', which implies a papal defection, itself falsify the Catholic Faith"?
2. "To Who or what what exactly are the Catholic Faithful, faithful to: the pope, or Christ?" And of course, "How much cheating, and apostasy are Catholic faithful required to ignore, before acknowledging it?"
Can't wait till it becomes available for the general public.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work Prof!
"You take suffering, you take disorder and you draw a good out of them by accepting it in a penitential spirit. And I think that's the way people ought to accept the suffering that they feel under the current administration of the Church under the papacy. I'm gonna take this on, I'm gonna bear it as Christ bore the cross."
ReplyDeleteBravo Ed, bravo.
I'm speechless at how spiritually mature, well-elaborated, and true that statement was.
As always, you were incredibly clear, helpful, and an example of how a true Catholic must act.
I do not believe the members of the Catholic church are "suffering" under the papacy of Pope Francis. But I do understand why Prof. Feser and many of his followers feel as they do. I think that the next pope will be just like Francis, so you all have a lot of "suffering" ahead that you will have accept in a "penitential spirit."
DeleteWell, what you believe to be the case and what is the case are different things that do not necessarily reflect the actual state of the Church.
DeleteBesides, if the next Pope will be like Francis (or worse) so be it, we gladly take the burden.
There are many liberal cardinals in the College of Cardinals. They want another Francis. It's going to be great. A lot changes are coming.
DeleteI do not believe the members of the Catholic church are "suffering" under the papacy of Pope Francis. But I do understand why Prof. Feser and many of his followers feel as they do.
DeleteThat's incredibly ironic: You might feel like you are suffering, but in reality, you aren't actually suffering. What you are experience is more like pretend-suffering, which you could stop suffering if only you told yourself not to suffer anymore.
Remind me to hire you to talk to people with depression. You should also give speeches to people like Bishop Strickland, the nuns in PA who were kicked out of their home, etc. Could you convince them that they haven't been removed from their positions, (though, of course, they are NOT free to return to their old places, you know)? And the people who no longer have a Traditional Latin mass available? And how about people coming out of surgery - you could tell them they aren't in pain and don't need pain meds.
Whether they SHOULD feel hurt by Francis's actions is a different question than whether they DO feel hurt. It is incontrovertible that Francis's decisions have taken something away from them.
There are many liberal cardinals in the College of Cardinals.
True.
They want another Francis.
That's actually not quite as true. Let's distinguish between people who were considered "liberal" in 1990 and 2000, and those who constitute the radical left of 2020. There are plenty of cardinals in the former, not so many in the latter group. Some liberal cardinals are dismayed at Francis's goals.
And some are disgusted by (or afraid of) his methods and ruling style. They most definitely don't want a repeat of that.
Major Depressive Disorder is a serious mental illness. My sister suffers from it because of the death of her son.You need not "hire" me to talk to someone who is clinically depressed.
DeleteCatholics who feel "depressed" by the actions of Francis are not suffering from MDD. The church is changing and they just don't like it. Bishop Strickland deserved to be removed from office because he was undermining the faith.
Liberal Cardinals are "afraid "or "disgusted" by Francis? Please. That is only wishful thinking. I think liberal Cardinals very much echo what Fr. Roberto Pasolini, the new preacher of the papal household, said in an article published today in The Arlington Catholic Herald, when he said Catholics should "not be closed to change." And they should not be because more changes will indeed come.
echo what Fr. Roberto Pasolini, the new preacher of the papal household, said in an article published today in The Arlington Catholic Herald, when he said Catholics should "not be closed to change." And they should not be because more changes will indeed come.
DeleteWhat a bizarre thing to say! First, of course Catholics should not be opposed to ALL change: I am a sinner, I am not opposed to my becoming perfect and being received into heaven. I am not opposed to the Church's priests and bishops becoming holy. I am not opposed to a long-extended world peace. All these would be change. And there isn't anybody who thinks conservatives are against such changes.
And of course a Catholic should be opposed to SOME changes: a person acquiring a new vice, a person committing a new mortal sin, a new unjust war, an evil and deformed kind of "worship" being marketed as the best new thing.
The fact that "changes will come" is not any kind of recommendation for them: if they are bad changes, they should be resisted even if you think your resistance will not be wholly successful. At a minimum, your resisting them helps inoculate yourself against thinking evil things are neutral or good. It is for changes that are good that one should willingly embrace them and hope they occur. Anybody who urges change merely because it is change is being dumb.
Liberal Cardinals are "afraid "or "disgusted" by Francis? Please. That is only wishful thinking.
You are not very observant if you haven't noticed that a number of bishops and cardinals act cowed and work hard to avoid notice from Francis so as not to get enmeshed in his vatican political machinations, which are fairly rough.
While I think that Prof. Feser's phrasing his comments about a hypothetical condition (e.g. Pope Francis - or some future pope - explicitly declaring as ex cathedra, something clearly contradictory to settled doctrine like "Christ is a divine Person") as "that would falsify Catholicism" could be understood in its proper light, I think it is an imprudent phrasing and probably elbows right up against error. The problem is that (a) the hypothetical cannot obtain if Catholicism is true, and (b) the Catholic is obliged by his faith not to doubt dogmatic definitions of the Church. Another way of saying (b) is he cannot hypothesize their contrary, and still speak sensibly afterwards like "what that would mean". Like in all ordinary logic, accepting 2 contradictory premises entails the ability to derive ANY nonsensical conclusion, so also here. To entertain that God is God and also that God failed in his promise to protect his Church is to entertain contradictory hypotheses.
ReplyDeleteIt would be MUCH better, in my opinion, when someone like Matt proposes the old "what if the pope...", to counter with this: well, let's go ahead and suppose that some pope gets it in his head that Christ is not a divine Person, and further that he wants to teach it, and that he further toys with the idea of declaring it as an ex cathedra definition. The Catholic Church's faith entails that God would intervene and do something that prevents that from happening: either God would step in and change his mind about declaring it, or change his mind about the teaching itself, or make him ill so that he cannot move forward on his intention, or let him die so that his intended declaration is never made, or any of a dozen other impediments that would stop it. To suppose that God is unable to do so is to suppose God is not what the Church has always said God is. We can firmly rely on the promise that God would never allow such a thing, and considering a "what if" like that is not proper.
I fear that the kind of phrasing like "well, that would falsify the Catholic Church", at least in practical terms, amounts to permission to doubt articles of faith. I know Feser did NOT mean it that way, and I don't in the least accuse him of any such thing. But it was still unfortunate in structure.
"The Catholic Church's faith entails that God would intervene and do something that prevents that from happening: either God would step in and change his mind about declaring it, or change his mind about the teaching itself, or make him ill so that he cannot move forward on his intention, or let him die so that his intended declaration is never made, or any of a dozen other impediments that would stop it."
DeleteThis would not answer the question. The question is not "Would it ever happen" but "What if it did happen?". Feser made it abundantly clear that he was absolutely convinced it would never happen.
"To suppose that God is unable to do so is to suppose God is not what the Church has always said God is."
Well, yeah. So it sounds like you agree with Dr. Feser that if it happened this would falsify Catholicism.
"I fear that the kind of phrasing like "well, that would falsify the Catholic Church", at least in practical terms, amounts to permission to doubt articles of faith. "
How on earth does it do that? It does precisely the opposite. He is saying that if an article of faith is doubted, you effectively don't believe in the teachings of Catholicism anyway.
'Scholar' Tony is just being a pompous tit here.
DeleteHi Tony
DeleteI had previously expressed similar worries, regarding that "falsify catholicism" line of thought.
It seems to me that it should be expressed within a very rigorous framework, perhaps a book length treatment of that touches upon natural law, biblical exegesis and finally the different types of Church teaching and that's why Dr Feser's book on Capital Punishment exists. It's a brilliant book. I recommend it to everyone here.
So I think that Prof should always point to that book especially while commenting on the integrity of Catholicism.
The only other thing I would like Prof to clarify are his thoughts on what constitutes or what could constitute legitimate debate on Church teaching.
Bellomy
I think what Tony meant was that bringing it up in that way might comfort those who are already doubting or who have already split with the Church.
Consider for example that there are some Christian sects who claim to be Catholic with the only exception being that they don't assent to one of the Marian doctrines.
Now many such people may have only a half baked idea of the Church functions and how doctrines are declared.
So upon seeing such a thing, they might just take comfort in their surface level knowledge of it instead of probing the issue further. They might think, ,"Oh traditionally the Church never thought such a doctrine etc " without having adequate knowledge of how the doctrine is actually rooted in tradition as well as the declaration process.
They may not realise that Prof actually has a very detailed commentary on this, from the natural law to Church teaching to biblical exegesis to tradition etc. That's why my only recommendation was that Prof shout out his book while broaching the subject.
Anon
Tony is one of the most interesting commentators I have encountered on this blog. He is always reasonable and respectful. In fact part of the reason why I post here, is there's a good chance Tony would respond to it if not Prof and he is someone who is also familiar with Aquinas. It's hard sometimes when one takes the time to formulate a more or less decent question and it ultimately goes without a response. So I for one am grateful that Tony engages.
"I think what Tony meant was that bringing it up in that way might comfort those who are already doubting or who have already split with the Church."
DeleteIt well might, but so what? If Dr. Feser is right - and as far as I can tell, he is, you and Tony just don't like the implications of him being right - then nevertheless what he said is true.
Bellomy
Delete"It well might, So what".
If you concede that, then what is the point you are trying to make ?
Do you like the fact that someone might doubt the faith because of some misconception ?
No one is questioning the fact that Prof is correct.
The only thing that is being questioned is if there is a better way to express one self on this topic that doesn't give rise to misconceptions. What I suggested was that Prof recommend his book while talking about it so that people don't get any false impressions.
That is all. No one is scared of any implications. Indeed the main implication of what Prof said is precisely that Catholicism can never ever be falsified because what matters for doctrinal continuity is the Pope's declarations under extremely specific circumstances, namely ex cathedra declarations , something that is very rarely excercised. What implication would you be referring to that we are so afraid of.
What I was concerned with is people drawing out conclusions that are not at all implied by what Prof said but has come to be associated with it in some way.
Bellomy here. It won't let me sign in.
Delete"If you concede that, then what is the point you are trying to make ?"
That if it's true, and it seems to me it is, he would be wrong not to say it anyway. Some truths are uncomfortable to some people.
"Do you like the fact that someone might doubt the faith because of some misconception ?"
This is childish.
"The only thing that is being questioned is if there is a better way to express one self on this topic that doesn't give rise to misconceptions."
What I am saying is that there don't seem to be misconceptions, you just dislike admitting that what he said is clearly true. If certain things occurred the Church says cannot occur, Catholicism would in fact be false. They did not occur, so we have no reason to think Catholicism is false. That is pretty nearly exactly what Dr. Feser said.
"What implication would you be referring to that we are so afraid of."
You seem to think that the Professor's implying Catholicism might be false. If that is not what he is implying, then there isn't an issue to what he is saying anyway. If some people understand it that way, I have no idea what they were listening to, but his point is correct in any case.
I mean it's not like my position is even particularly extreme. I'm just saying I agree with how the good professor originally worded it.
What I am saying is that there don't seem to be misconceptions, you just dislike admitting that what he said is clearly true. If certain things occurred the Church says cannot occur, Catholicism would in fact be false. They did not occur, so we have no reason to think Catholicism is false. That is pretty nearly exactly what Dr. Feser said...You seem to think that the Professor's implying Catholicism might be false. If that is not what he is implying,...
DeleteHere you seem to be indicating that some concerning events imagined to be possible have not happened and because of that the feared result is not a real situation. The way you have phrased it, it appears that the lack of those concerning events are merely historical facts about a certain 2000 year history, but they might still come about in the future.
This would not answer the question. The question is not "Would it ever happen" but "What if it did happen?". Feser made it abundantly clear that he was absolutely convinced it would never happen.
And here you seem to present the event as something that "would" never happen, but (perhaps)? at least in principle could happen.
I am urging that the correct response is not to answer the question, but to say "that's a wrong question." All sorts of questions are wrong questions: What if God is really a green tree frog in Nigeria? What if you don't exist in any sense. What if the number 3 has always been the number 4 all along? What if God makes promises and then breaks them?
I'll have to watch the interview.
ReplyDeleteBut before I do, I'll guess that they will probably discuss:
"What do you mean exactly by falsify?"; "Can any lately promulgated doctrine at all be falsified and not falsify the entire historic faith?"; "Would impeaching the authority and ex cathedra pronouncements of one modern pope, elected with dubious procedural violations regarding pre election caucusing, falsify the Catholic faith?"; "Does the entire Christian faith hinge on the papal infallibility doctrine of the Catholic Church?"
And finally,
1. "Would the said-to-be-Scripturally-predicted 'Great Apostasy', which implies a papal defection, itself falsify the Catholic Faith"?
2. "To Who or what what exactly are the Catholic Faithful, faithful to: the pope, or Christ?" And of course, "How much cheating, and apostasy are Catholic faithful required to ignore, before acknowledging it?"