Francis against 'orthodoxy'?
by Fr. Ray Blake For those who have a little theological insight or understanding of the history of theology in the last 150 years it is pretty obvious that what is commonly described as orthodoxy has …More
by Fr. Ray Blake
For those who have a little theological insight or understanding of the history of theology in the last 150 years it is pretty obvious that what is commonly described as orthodoxy has been struggling for existence against a pragmatic approach to belief. Really, the big difficulty many of us have with Pope Francis' theology is that he seems to be an advocate of pragmatism and disfavours orthodoxy. In the previous papacy orthodoxy seemed to be triumphing over the theological approach Congar, Rhanner and the greatest of all proponent of this new approach to Catholic theology Hans Kung. Now, under Francis, orthodoxy is becoming a dirty word. the 'formlessness' of Kung seems to be on the rise.
My Italian is pretty poor, with 'google translate' I can with a bit of difficulty begin to make sense of something. Have a look at this article, which tries to understand Francis' theology The significant paragraph is this - my translation.
....the formulas and dogmas cannot be understood …More
For those who have a little theological insight or understanding of the history of theology in the last 150 years it is pretty obvious that what is commonly described as orthodoxy has been struggling for existence against a pragmatic approach to belief. Really, the big difficulty many of us have with Pope Francis' theology is that he seems to be an advocate of pragmatism and disfavours orthodoxy. In the previous papacy orthodoxy seemed to be triumphing over the theological approach Congar, Rhanner and the greatest of all proponent of this new approach to Catholic theology Hans Kung. Now, under Francis, orthodoxy is becoming a dirty word. the 'formlessness' of Kung seems to be on the rise.
My Italian is pretty poor, with 'google translate' I can with a bit of difficulty begin to make sense of something. Have a look at this article, which tries to understand Francis' theology The significant paragraph is this - my translation.
....the formulas and dogmas cannot be understood …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Prof. Leonard Wessell
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I have printed out and read the article with my limited Italian. A full translation into English and German should be made for Gloria.tv followers. A detailed commentary would be valuable. I deeply than Fr. Blake for revealing the article.
I will only take up only one point (given above in the translation), and only very briefly, although the point evinces the same logic in the Pope's reductionism …More
I have printed out and read the article with my limited Italian. A full translation into English and German should be made for Gloria.tv followers. A detailed commentary would be valuable. I deeply than Fr. Blake for revealing the article.
I will only take up only one point (given above in the translation), and only very briefly, although the point evinces the same logic in the Pope's reductionism of the autonomy of human reason to a function of conditions beyond (called historical and sociological) as is found in in the young Marx' reductionistic criticism of the automomy of reason as part of his matrialism.
First autonomous reason: Cardinal Newman wrote a study on the (historical) development of theological ideas (1845) wherein he shows how cognitive understanding (= act of autonomous reason) works upon the data of revelation and establishes cognitive criteria for a valid development. For instance, the doctrinal development of Mary as the Mother of God could not take place until it was cognitively determined that Jesus, the human, was not like one capitan of a ship and God the other capitan, i.e., Jesus was not God. Once this cognitive problem was decided; namely, Jesus is the incarnation of God in a human person (Jesus = Second Person), Catholics had a "dogma", i.e., cognitive formulation. At this point it is clear that Mary is the Mother of God, not before the dogma. A new theological area opens up for dogmatic development. Newman's study has value if and only if human reason has autonomy no matter what the historical and sociological (and economic) context might be. The development of dogma (= decided cognitive truth) has a REAL history!!!! This is the foundation of "orthodoxy".
Now historical reason: However, if thinking is not really autonous, rather instead fundamentally subject to extra-rational forces, e.g., economic or dynastic or nationalistic, etc., then the appparent autonomous thinking is nothing but or no other than a functional result of said "real" factors. By suggesting that "dogmas", i.e., cognitive knowledge formulated in propositional form, should be seen as functions of historical and sociological (and economic) interests, conditions, influences, then the history of dogma loses autonomy, i.e., there is in effect NO history of dogma, NO development of objective truth, rather only the fluctuation of sociological influences in a historical (not cognitive) context. This is why being limted or directed by orthodoxy (= settled truths of a cognitive nature) becomes "a metaphysical violence" (indeed, metaphysics itself, because transhistorical, is also per se "violent" -- the violence of settled truth. And truth always limits freedom.
What is then primary? "Pastoral practice" is the answer. What does this entail? Helping people with their "material" needs or, as Marx put it in his similar way of thinking, "Eating and drinking, lodging, clothes and some other things [later called "sex" by the cultural Marxists]". Pope Francis and Karl Marx seem to agree relative to that towards which energy should be directed. Marx called it revolutionary activity and the Pope calls its "pastoral practice.". In both cases, not salvation (in a religious sense), rather emancipation is the telos guidig practice.
If the primacy of pastoral practice replaces orthodox truth, there will be in the papal revolution many non-violent victims as there were violent ones in Marxism. Relativity demands is sacrifices for practice Practice as primary necessarily terminates also transhistorical moral truths. What is "good" will become what is "efficacious in practice".
I will only take up only one point (given above in the translation), and only very briefly, although the point evinces the same logic in the Pope's reductionism of the autonomy of human reason to a function of conditions beyond (called historical and sociological) as is found in in the young Marx' reductionistic criticism of the automomy of reason as part of his matrialism.
First autonomous reason: Cardinal Newman wrote a study on the (historical) development of theological ideas (1845) wherein he shows how cognitive understanding (= act of autonomous reason) works upon the data of revelation and establishes cognitive criteria for a valid development. For instance, the doctrinal development of Mary as the Mother of God could not take place until it was cognitively determined that Jesus, the human, was not like one capitan of a ship and God the other capitan, i.e., Jesus was not God. Once this cognitive problem was decided; namely, Jesus is the incarnation of God in a human person (Jesus = Second Person), Catholics had a "dogma", i.e., cognitive formulation. At this point it is clear that Mary is the Mother of God, not before the dogma. A new theological area opens up for dogmatic development. Newman's study has value if and only if human reason has autonomy no matter what the historical and sociological (and economic) context might be. The development of dogma (= decided cognitive truth) has a REAL history!!!! This is the foundation of "orthodoxy".
Now historical reason: However, if thinking is not really autonous, rather instead fundamentally subject to extra-rational forces, e.g., economic or dynastic or nationalistic, etc., then the appparent autonomous thinking is nothing but or no other than a functional result of said "real" factors. By suggesting that "dogmas", i.e., cognitive knowledge formulated in propositional form, should be seen as functions of historical and sociological (and economic) interests, conditions, influences, then the history of dogma loses autonomy, i.e., there is in effect NO history of dogma, NO development of objective truth, rather only the fluctuation of sociological influences in a historical (not cognitive) context. This is why being limted or directed by orthodoxy (= settled truths of a cognitive nature) becomes "a metaphysical violence" (indeed, metaphysics itself, because transhistorical, is also per se "violent" -- the violence of settled truth. And truth always limits freedom.
What is then primary? "Pastoral practice" is the answer. What does this entail? Helping people with their "material" needs or, as Marx put it in his similar way of thinking, "Eating and drinking, lodging, clothes and some other things [later called "sex" by the cultural Marxists]". Pope Francis and Karl Marx seem to agree relative to that towards which energy should be directed. Marx called it revolutionary activity and the Pope calls its "pastoral practice.". In both cases, not salvation (in a religious sense), rather emancipation is the telos guidig practice.
If the primacy of pastoral practice replaces orthodox truth, there will be in the papal revolution many non-violent victims as there were violent ones in Marxism. Relativity demands is sacrifices for practice Practice as primary necessarily terminates also transhistorical moral truths. What is "good" will become what is "efficacious in practice".
rhemes1582
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Once upon a time the Yoke{concept of orthodoxy} of the Lord was sweet, within The Church. Her children that embraced it found it sweet, and were held up as Saintly. Those that struggled with the yoke{concept of orthodoxy}, were treated pastorally.
Today some of the church`s children still find the yoke sweet, but the church Refuses to acknowledge them.More
Once upon a time the Yoke{concept of orthodoxy} of the Lord was sweet, within The Church. Her children that embraced it found it sweet, and were held up as Saintly. Those that struggled with the yoke{concept of orthodoxy}, were treated pastorally.
Today some of the church`s children still find the yoke sweet, but the church Refuses to acknowledge them.
Today some of the church`s children still find the yoke sweet, but the church Refuses to acknowledge them.
rhemes1582
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Yes:
Father Blake. 
I am pretty sure they called that : Modernism in the 1st half of the 20th century.
I say it still is modernism, and still something to be condemned.More
Yes:
Father Blake.
I am pretty sure they called that : Modernism in the 1st half of the 20th century.
I say it still is modernism, and still something to be condemned.
Father Blake.
I am pretty sure they called that : Modernism in the 1st half of the 20th century.
I say it still is modernism, and still something to be condemned.