Tuesday, November 4, 2025

Cardinal Fernández on doctrinal clarity

From Twitter/X today, apropos of Mater Populi Fidelis:

Posted by at

6 comments:

  1. TonyNovember 4, 2025 at 11:32 AM

    A prudent consistency is the hobgoblin of orthodox minds. We don't need no stinkin' consistency around here.

    The liberal elitigentia are well known for exercising reasonable norms when and as it advances their pet causes, not otherwise. Even here, Ferdinand overstates the issue. Where in English it is rendered with toned-down phrasing:

    22. Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it would not be appropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation. ,

    in the original Spanish it is

    Teniendo en cuenta la necesidad de explicar el papel subordinado de María a Cristo en la obra de la Redención, es siempre inoportuno el uso del título de Corredentora para definir la cooperación de María.

    "siempre inoportuno" as "always inopportune" exaggerates the concern in the title. Why would he need to issue an "always" judgment when it is not possible to know what social conditions will present themselves in the future?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David McPikeNovember 4, 2025 at 3:20 PM

      But then, by parity of reasoning, it would seem that it would also not be appropriate to use the term 'co-operation' to define the work of Mary (en este caso, siempre es inoportuno el uso del termino 'cooperacion' para definir la operacion de Maria).
      On 'siempre': I believe the sense could, besides 'always,' also be 'still' or 'at least.'

      Delete
  2. AnonymousNovember 4, 2025 at 12:26 PM

    Interesting, after CVII putting its hope in the late European philosophy - Heidegger and so forth - Leo XIV now points to east.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Great Thurible of DarknessNovember 4, 2025 at 2:07 PM

    I mean, there are lots of doctrinal "expressions" in Christian history that have required "many, repeated explanations to prevent [them] from straying from a correct meaning"—"begotten, not made," "truly God and truly man," "proceeds from the Father and the Son," etc. I'm sure the losing factions at Nicaea or Chalcedon felt exactly the same way about those formulations being "unhelpful" and not serving the faith. Doesn't mean they were right (or wrong).

    But it does mean that, from a historical perspective (and that's what matters here), it's not a very good argument. At least, it has an inherent tendency to rebound upon the very doctrinal positions it's used to defend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserNovember 4, 2025 at 2:23 PM

      The difficulty in those cases derives from the subject matter, viz. the divine nature, which is as remote from ordinary experience and language as a topic can be. And also, of course, the formulations took centuries to hammer out precisely.

      By contrast, the topics referred to in my tweet are pretty simple and straightforward, mostly concerned as they are with everyday human life rather than abstract metaphysical questions. And they were long settled in the tradition. The difficulties arose from imprecise remarks and apparent attempts to meddle with that tradition.

      Delete
  4. AnonymousNovember 4, 2025 at 3:35 PM

    Here is that alleged “liberal” Vatican II Dei Verbum Chapter II sect.9…”This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on.” Not only does this put the last four Popes in trouble on the death penalty but it begs for an investigation of every Cardinal who voted them into office…especially the last two. Cardinal Newman said that in the 4th century the ecclesia docens was in suspension. Ask ai at google, it will say yes….he did say that. Well then…deja vu.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)