With regret and sorrow I am, paradoxically, grateful for this contribution; it exudes the love of truth (judgments that correspond to the way things really are), though it leaves me wanting to go one step further and discuss the fine discussions of Karl Popper about being able to set criteria to test the refutation of a claimed truth. More on this below.
I am no real fan of theology (except natural …More
With regret and sorrow I am, paradoxically, grateful for this contribution; it exudes the love of truth (judgments that correspond to the way things really are), though it leaves me wanting to go one step further and discuss the fine discussions of Karl Popper about being able to set criteria to test the refutation of a claimed truth. More on this below.
I am no real fan of theology (except natural/philosphical theology, e.g., God's infinity, being, existence, etc.); theologians of revelation are continually pullying each others beards (= metaphor for disagreeing >> at times concerning mutally exclusive "truths" re revelation). The material presented by Verrecchio shows us theologians, representatives of revealed theologies that assert mutually exclusive and, hence, differing "truths" (e.g., the real presence in the Host or, even, the nature of sacraments, assuming sacraments are accepted), who have ceased to pull each other's beards of difference (re TRUTH) and concluded that the mere possession of beards means UNITY, so long as the common verbal unity of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" and, perhaps, also "Jesus" coats the wagging tongues of the differently bearded theologians. The message is clear: UNITY (with minimal conceptual agreement) IS the categorical imperative of the Spirit (of modern times), relative to which differences (of TRUTHS) pale into insignificance; an imperative which inexorably constitutes the categorical MISSION of the "Church" (ambiguously? meaning Catholic and non-Catholic institutions). If my interpretation is correct, then the "Catholic" Pope Francis & Co are construcing a brand NEW lex credendi which with logical necessity demands reflection in the Novus Ordo of the current lex orandi, a lex notably contra the form and intent of traditional Latin Mass and the concept of TRUTH generating it.
The current Pope is straining my obligation to TRUTH (which as St. Anselm claims: Veritas est Deus). This obligation demands that I judge things to be as they are, not as I want them to be, even if my "wanting" is motivated by a desire for UNITY, one that excludes significant truths from the differences between theologians, within and without the Catholic Church. Such unity is a unity of emotions of "feel good", of "do-goodies", love and mercy (without truth), help the poor, unload on capitalism, etc. etc. I then read the Mortalium animos and find Pope against Pope. What???? What should I conclude?
Let me go back to Popper. Popper argues that a truth-claim that allows for no possiblity of refutation is phoney, is a pseudo-truth-claim. Now Popper was interested in science. His idea, however, is applicable elsewhere. The Catholic Church has claimed that the Magisterium cannot formally contradict itself on matters of faith and morals. Am I correct here? If Verrecchio is correct with his presentation and I with my interpretation, then my problemaitc differs from Verrecchio'a. Verrecchio asks about respect for the truths asserted by a previous Pope. Good question! But, if Pope X contradicts Pope Y concerning the nature of the unity (in truth) of Christ's Church, then it would appear that we have a case where the Catholic cliam to non-conradiction has been refuted. Verrecchio's way out has been explicitly to designate Pope Francis as a material heretic. Only a formally proposed contradiction could refute the Magisterium claim. My questions for Verrecchio or any reader is: Is Verrecchio's distinction betweem formal and matrial heresy sustainable? Can Pope Francis go endlessly around materially contradicting previous papal formal teachings without ever entering the realm of formality? If the answer is "no", then a situation evincing Popper's criterion of refutation has perhaps come about.
I have no answer as of yet! But, even if Pp Francis persists in Verrecchio's terms to be repetitiously heretical in materiality (i.e., never crosses the line of formality) the distinction will eventually make no significant distinction. The Pope's repeated falsities and repeated false behavioral patterns based on such falsities will at best obfuscate the real everlasting TRUTH(s) previously of the Magisterium. Formal contradiction will refute unchanging TRUTH(s) as seen from the point of view of a centuries-long Catholicism. This Pope is a scandal in many way, particularly for those who lovingly and imperatively seek THE truth(s).