post-modernism and Catholic authority
Ian Smith
loosely labelled as being about authority and christian religion (very
loosely). I have some questions for the knowledgable:
What is 'post-modernity'?
I've a vague sort of conception of modern being age-of-reason, effects
have causes, science explains all and will solve all, sort of thing.
Post-modern would therefore be not this - more intuition, mystic,
shades-of-truth sort of thing. What I don't understand is how this is
distinguished from pre-modern. Does anyone have a good snappy
definition?
In RC faith, what are the sources of authority and are they graded?
I think tradition, the church authorities, and the bible, but it's a
guess. I have an (out-of-date, I think) 'Catechism of teh Catholic
Church', which presumably contains the answer, but I'm being lazy and
am not entirely sure how top approach it. By contrast, I'm confident
in saying that evangelicals would put the bible alone as supreme
authority on pretty much everything.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Doug C
news:slrncmgij...@phlegethon.smithnet...
> I've started doing some reading and thinking that could probably be
> loosely labelled as being about authority and christian religion (very
> loosely). I have some questions for the knowledgable:
>
> What is 'post-modernity'?
>
> I've a vague sort of conception of modern being age-of-reason, effects
> have causes, science explains all and will solve all, sort of thing.
> Post-modern would therefore be not this - more intuition, mystic,
> shades-of-truth sort of thing. What I don't understand is how this is
> distinguished from pre-modern. Does anyone have a good snappy
> definition?
A kind of over-simplistic summary:
Pre-moderns believed in grand overarching myths which embraced the natural
and supernatural as ways of understanding the world.
Moderns believed that understanding the world was the work of reason, and
believed in an overarching myth of human progress from the dark ages to
ever -increasing enlightenment.
Post-moderns believe that reason alone is incapable of understanding the
world, and that there are no overarching myths at all.
>
>
> In RC faith, what are the sources of authority and are they graded?
>
Officially, the Word of God, made flesh in Christ, and witnessed to in
scripture and the traditions passed down from the apostles, and interpreted
by the church, especially the magisterium (teaching office) but also the
sensus fidelium (the general agreement of the faithful to that teaching).
The most authoratative staement of that comes in Vatican II's document, Dei
Verbum (available on the web at
http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/dei.ver). The debate on that document
started with a draft referring to the two sources of revelation, scripture
and tradition, which was thrown out as heretical, because there was, in the
Word, only one and the same source for both scripture and tradition.
--
Doug
--
brain under construction
George Cox
>
> ... science explains all
Plainly a falsehood. Who makes such a claim?
Michael Falconer
www.hermeneutica.me.uk
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be
rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of
thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou
mayest see.
"Ian Smith" <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrncmgij...@phlegethon.smithnet...
Pre modern in my view is before the so called Age of Reason, or the so
called "Englightment". Then we became modern, with the Age of Reason when we
abandoned our faith in the childish superstitions of faith and became grown
men capable of using our intellects.......
Finally comes the post age which is the age we now live. Where it is now
realised that the promises of the age of reason are now proven to be
false.......after 2 world wars and the holecaust............
The question of Authority in the Church is a old one and excercises more
than Catholics. The Catholics assert I think, the equal weight of both the
Scriptures and Tradition. This is the basis of their Authority. The
Protestants ( I think that they have now died out and no longer exist, after
all this is the age of the DVD, not the printed Word. ) used to acknowledge
Scripture only as their source of Authority in the Church. But since I
certainly know of none who go with that position I guess we are all
Catholics...............
Steven Kitson
>What is 'post-modernity'?
>
>I've a vague sort of conception of modern being age-of-reason, effects
>have causes, science explains all and will solve all, sort of thing.
>Post-modern would therefore be not this - more intuition, mystic,
>shades-of-truth sort of thing. What I don't understand is how this is
>distinguished from pre-modern. Does anyone have a good snappy
>definition?
You're wrong about 'modern', I'm afraid. Though the labels are actually
possibly more of a hindrence to understanding than they are a help, being
applied to philosophy, literature, visual arts, music, and sometimes even
science. Very simplified, the basic divisions are:
Classical/Englightenment: this is the 'everything can be understood',
mechanistic view. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean 'science
explains all', it just means that things are knowable and understandable
in principle (though not necessarily by scientific means). In this
tradition you have Kant, Mill and all the empiricists, etc etc, and in
artistic terms the realist novellists, and visual artists who try to
reproduce the world. In science you have Newton and his determanistic laws
of motion. Then about the turn of the twentieth century this gives way to:
Modernism: which is about the fracturing of perspectives; the
acknowledgement that we all see different things, that no one person can
perceive all of reality, that anything we see is tainted by our subjective
position. In the visual arts you get a moving away from attempting to
reproduce reality, in literature you get Woolf and Eliot and so on. In
science, Einstein: everything, even time, depends on the position of the
observer; no two people will see the same thign if they are at different
places/speeds (but you can transform between frames, you can work out form
what one person sees what another will have seen). But the general feeling
is one of the fracture of something lost; we can't ever know reality and
that's a tragedy. But then it goes farther and that's:
Post-modernism: where it's not just that we each see reality though our
own subjective lens, but there _is_ no definite reality to be seen. In
science you have quantum mechanics: God playing dice. Not only are there
things that we don't know but we can't know them, even in theory. In
philosophy you get Derrida trying to undermine the entire basis of
rational, logical discourse. In literature the fracture that the
modernists lamented becomes something to be celebrated.
Or, if you want it in even more simplfied sound-bites:
Classical: 'things exist and we can know them'
Modernist: 'things exist but we can never know them completely'
Post-modernist: 'things don't exist, but we talk about them anyway'
--
It always comes back to monkeys somehow.
Edward Green
> loosely labelled as being about authority and christian religion (very
> loosely). I have some questions for the knowledgable:
>
You may find the book Clashing Symbols: An Introduction to Faith and
Culture by Michael Paul Gallagher useful.
He is a very gifted RC writer on the subject, and unlike most Anglicans (who
attribute anything bad in culture to the evils of postmodernity) is actually
rather upbeat and hopeful.
Eddie.
Alec Brady
<i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>In RC faith, what are the sources of authority and are they graded?
Well, the *source* of authority is our Lord. The authorities which
a RC Christian submits to are Scripture and the Magisterium (the
teaching office of the Church).
They're not graded, because they don't conflict, because they're doing
two different things. Scripture is the ultimate authority, but
Scripture as interpreted by the Magisterium.
Tradition isn't a separate source of authority, but the process by
which the Magisterium works, as well as the process by which the
Sensus Fidelium (the ordinary understanding of the faith held by the
laity) works.
--
Alec Brady
Ian Smith
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 20:15:00 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
> <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >In RC faith, what are the sources of authority and are they graded?
>
> which the Magisterium works, as well as the process by which the
> Sensus Fidelium (the ordinary understanding of the faith held by the
> laity) works.
Is this saying that what the church endorses is not what it teaches,
but what the ordinary laity in the street _thinks_ the church teaches?
Surely not?
Alec Brady
<i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:36:17 GMT, Alec Brady <alec....@virgin.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 20:15:00 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
>> <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In RC faith, what are the sources of authority and are they graded?
>>
>> Tradition isn't a separate source of authority, but the process by
>> which the Magisterium works, as well as the process by which the
>> Sensus Fidelium (the ordinary understanding of the faith held by the
>> laity) works.
>
>Is this saying that what the church endorses is not what it teaches,
>but what the ordinary laity in the street _thinks_ the church teaches?
>Surely not?
Indeed not. IRCO, what the Church teaches is what the Magisterium
teaches. But the Sensus Fidelium still exists, albeit not as
systematised as what the Magisterium teaches.
When (IIRC) ther Doctrine of the Assumption was defined, the almost
universal presence of that doctrine in the Sensus Fidelium was part of
the reasoning given.
--
Alec Brady
Michael J Davis
<i...@astounding.org.uk> writes
>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:23:11 GMT, Alec Brady <alec....@virgin.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:51:14 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
>> <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:36:17 GMT, Alec Brady <alec....@virgin.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 20:15:00 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
>> >> <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In RC faith, what are the sources of authority and are they graded?
>> >>
>> >> Tradition isn't a separate source of authority, but the process by
>> >> which the Magisterium works, as well as the process by which the
>> >> Sensus Fidelium (the ordinary understanding of the faith held by the
>> >> laity) works.
>> >
>> >Is this saying that what the church endorses is not what it teaches,
>> >but what the ordinary laity in the street _thinks_ the church teaches?
>> >Surely not?
>>
>> Indeed not. IRCO, what the Church teaches is what the Magisterium
>> teaches. But the Sensus Fidelium still exists, albeit not as
>> systematised as what the Magisterium teaches.
>
>Fidelium was also one of teh sources of authority, but I see it can be
>read as merely being something else that works by tradition.
Since you asked, and Alec answered much better than I could, I haven't
interfered. ;-)
But I now think you are confusing _T_radition and _t_radition.
Capital-T is the continuity of the formal teaching (the Magisterium).
IIUHC, Alec is suggesting that sensus fidelium is the action of the Holy
Spirit in the body of the Church that guides and modifies the way the
Magisterium is formed (not the 'process').
I think that perhaps the origin of the Rosary comes into that category -
attributed to St Bernard, but probably in use in a small way before
that, the small-t tradition gets taken up, and becomes officially
endorsed, and becomes part of the Magisterium and thus capitalised so to
speak.
Alec?
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
"I give You all I have, and when I have nothing, I give You that nothing."
St Therese of Liseaux
<><
Andrew Criddle
>
> Indeed not. IRCO, what the Church teaches is what the Magisterium
> teaches. But the Sensus Fidelium still exists, albeit not as
> systematised as what the Magisterium teaches.
>
> When (IIRC) ther Doctrine of the Assumption was defined, the almost
> universal presence of that doctrine in the Sensus Fidelium was part of
> the reasoning given.
IIUC Some medieval theologians such as William of Ockham
held that a binding declaration by the Magisterium must
either be demonstrable from scripture or represent a
previously existing unambiguous Sensus Fidelium.
Andrew Criddle
Tony Gillam
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Simon Crouch
news:e4e84368.04101...@posting.google.com...
Do you recall in what sense William was using "Magisterium"?
all the best,
Simon.
Richard Emblem
<tgi...@NOSPAMcyberyacht.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Andrew Criddle wrote:
>> Alec Brady <alec....@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> news:<hcrtm0h7q4o0inn9a...@4ax.com>...
>>>
>>> Indeed not. IRCO, what the Church teaches is what the Magisterium
>>> teaches. But the Sensus Fidelium still exists, albeit not as
>>> systematised as what the Magisterium teaches.
>>>
>>> When (IIRC) ther Doctrine of the Assumption was defined, the almost
>>> universal presence of that doctrine in the Sensus Fidelium was part
>>> of the reasoning given.
>>
>> IIUC Some medieval theologians such as William of Ockham
>> held that a binding declaration by the Magisterium must
>> either be demonstrable from scripture or represent a
>> previously existing unambiguous Sensus Fidelium.
>>
>Was he the clean shaven one?
Indeed. I believe he liked the razor so much he bought the company.
Ockham is only few miles from me here and I often drive through it but
regrettably there is no barber (nor any shop at all).
Richard Emblem
"God loves you and there's not a thing you can do to change that."
(Rev Tom Van Culin, Honolulu)
Tony Gillam
Andrew Criddle
> "Andrew Criddle" <sar...@supanet.com> wrote in message
> news:e4e84368.04101...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > held that a binding declaration by the Magisterium must
> > either be demonstrable from scripture or represent a
> > previously existing unambiguous Sensus Fidelium.
>
> Do you recall in what sense William was using "Magisterium"?
>
Ockham is apparently talking about putting forward a doctrine
so as to be held irrevocably.
'to assert with constancy and irrevocably', 'determining from
final deliberation and compelling others to believe'
The role of the Pope when making an irrevocable definition is to
declare officially what the church already in some sense has comr
to know.
'For no Supreme Pontiff is the rule of Christian faith, since he can
err and fall into heretical evil, dist. 40, c. Si papa, and dist. 19,
c. Anastasius. But sacred scripture and the teaching of the whole
Church, which cannot err, is the rule of our faith'
If the Pope does this accurately then it becomes binding upon the
faithful irreformably. If the Pope does this wrongly then he effects
nothing at all becoming by this false definition a heretic and false
Pope and hence unable to pronounce upon doctrine.
'He who confirms himself ultimately in some heretical assertion is to
be regarded as pertinacious and a heretic, because such a person
irrevocably affirms an heretical assertion. But one who defines that
it is to be held confirms himself in that assertion through final
deliberation'
(Jacques Duese styling himself John XXII has pronounced false
definitions tending to lead astray the faithful hence ......
Andrew Criddle
Gareth McCaughan
> Indeed. I believe he liked the razor so much he bought the company.
> Ockham is only few miles from me here and I often drive through it but
> regrettably there is no barber (nor any shop at all).
There is only a barber there if you don't shave yourself.
And, as the Calvinists keep reminding us[1], it is entirely
impossible for you to shave yourself. Obviously you just
failed to notice the barber. (He looks just like a bridegroom.)
[1] and everyone else, actually
--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc
Nick Milton
<gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Richard Emblem wrote:
>
>> Indeed. I believe he liked the razor so much he bought the company.
>> Ockham is only few miles from me here and I often drive through it but
>> regrettably there is no barber (nor any shop at all).
>
>There is only a barber there if you don't shave yourself.
>And, as the Calvinists keep reminding us[1], it is entirely
>impossible for you to shave yourself. Obviously you just
>failed to notice the barber. (He looks just like a bridegroom.)
This thread has drifted from post-modernism to surrealism
Nick
Robert Marshall
> Richard Emblem wrote:
>
>> Indeed. I believe he liked the razor so much he bought the company.
>> Ockham is only few miles from me here and I often drive through it
>> but regrettably there is no barber (nor any shop at all).
>
> There is only a barber there if you don't shave yourself.
> And, as the Calvinists keep reminding us[1], it is entirely
> impossible for you to shave yourself. Obviously you just
> failed to notice the barber. (He looks just like a bridegroom.)
>
I'm having a Marriage of Figaro moment, probably part of the
deutero-canonical bits of Daniel, Susannah and the droit de seigneur..
Robert
--
Intelligence is nothing but analysed faith - Franz Schubert