Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Fallibility — Peter Robinson
As a friend, who is, like me, a convert to Catholicism, put it in an email: What is a Catholic to do when the Supreme Pontiff makes statements that are, on the very face of them, preposterous?
(If you disagree with the premise–that is, if you can see some way of constructing the statement such that it isn’t, actually, preposterous–please do say so. I’d be hugely relieved.)
Published in General
(1) The Pope doesn’t compose in English. Hence someone else is composing his English twitter feed.
(2) That someone else has coordinated the translation with various other vernacular twitter feeds (Spanish, etc)
(3) Latin is the more reliable feed, because the Vatican Latinists (at least in the past few years) are more scrupulous.
(4) Twitter doesn’t have a content length that would allow a proper formulation of anything except scriptural aphorisms.
(5) Trying to make sense of anything in the post conciliar Catholic world is perilous enough given their rejection of clear and unambiguous language and anything written in the past 21 councils and I can’t think of a better definition of futile than trying to import any significance to post conciliar “tweets”.
I do, and I concede this is not my best argument.
Let me try again: the section of Evangelii Gaudium (paragraph 202) that Joseph quoted earlier describes the plight of the poor as the result of the embrace of “the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation” that causes “inequality… the root of social ills.” From the context, I can only assume from the that this refers to economic inequality. If so, then this particular passage is total hogwash.
Am I reading it incorrectly? If so, how?
So, when trying to understand the intent of a message put out by The Vatican, I’m supposed to disregard the language used in the message put out by The Vatican.
Please re-read my (5). Persistence is futile. Ignore the twitter feeds.
Nah.
We’re probably back to the same old argument about Francis … an argument that I’ve concluded that we, on Ricochet, can’t get any further on. For the record, though, indulge me one shot here.
If you’re a rich person, you have options. You can make money through an investment in property, or through an investment that creates jobs. (Yes, some investments do both to some degree, but as a general rule, there’s a difference.)
On the other hand, if you’re poor, you have only one option – a job.
Capitalism – maybe not in theory, but for the last few years, in practice – favors putting money into property. The job market, in turn, sucks. Capitalism gives the capitalist the right to decide where to invest (correctly so, I believe) … but that still leaves the poor with less and less opportunity, through no fault of their own.
Tell me: can you see where a poor person might consider that unjust or unfair? After all, he’s not asking to be equally rich … he’s just asking for a fair shot to make a living.
I still don’t know what “social evil” means.
I’m also not sure about the theological implications of “inequality” being the root of sin.
I thought sin was the result of our persona imperfections – not a condition of “equality”.
If the rich are sinning because they are on one end of inequality then aren’t the poor sinning on the other side if they covet what the rich man has or does with his wealth?
Annefy in the member feed offers an alternate translation:
http://ricochet.com/inequality-and-the-popes-tweet/
“Iniquity is the root of social ills”
Indeed, the issue of the church’s authority was a major sticking point during the Protestant Reformation. The idea of giving the people a Bible in their own language was a major upheaval. Now that train has left the station seeing that the average Roman can read the Bible for themselves. But the church’s authority remains, which raises a dilemma.
How can the Roman church maintain its authority when everyone has access to the scriptures? To a certain extent doctrinal cohesion has to be an illusion because you’re never going to reach unanimity. Dissenters who do not want to leave must be diplomatic and avoid rocking the boat. I think the church has to use other means to keep everyone in line.
given their rejection of clear and unambiguous language and anything written in the past 21 councils and I can’t think of a better definition of futile than trying to import any significance to post conciliar “tweets”.
But then, I repeat myself.
Denziger is freely available.
Sorry to be so late to the party with my comment. Do you remember Joe Garcia? He helped us out once before with translation and the pope. Here is a screen shot of his comments regarding the pope’s tweet (I just posted same on the member feed)
Because the teaching authority of the church was already in place for about a generation before the scriptures were written.
The New Testament didn’t come into existence until about a generation after Jesus died (indeed, the passing of that generation is likely what started them writing the New Testament in the first place). That means, of course, that the church had been up and operating for quite some time.
Catholic believe that the scriptures and the church’s teaching authority cannot contradict one another. If there’s any dispute about an item of faith, the definitive authority doesn’t rest with each individual’s interpretation of the text. It rests with the bishops and the church as a whole.
That’s the Catholic view, anyway. As you know, others disagree.
The dang picture won’t post. I will just have to direct you to the member feed.
According to Wikipedia, a Papal statement cannot be considered infallible if it contradicts the Holy Scripture.
Not surprisingly, I’d like to hear more about your trip George. I apologize if you’ve already written about it and I missed it. I would also like to talk to you offline about an idea I’m toying with that has to do with political work out there. And, more pics please.
Indeed. Why read Denziger or Ripperger’s The Binding Force of Tradition, when we can read St. Wikipedia, Doctor of the Lurch?
I’m glad we agree.
;-)
Please read my previous comment regarding the 2nd Vatican Council’s silence on communism.
I’m sure they can come up with a response but how will they deal with the problem I mentioned?
I love studying other faiths and traditions, but I’ll leave this for others better qualified to speak for Protestants. I would like to read the responses, though.
The clergy has always had tares mixed in with the wheat, and has always had rebellious factions, some of whom rebelled on the basis of tenable arguments (Arians, say, or SSPX), and some of whom rebelled on an untenable basis (that their group’s leader was Christ or Mary, or that Christ condoned sexual immorality). Dramatically expanding education means that you get a little less deference, but it also increases the quality of clergy. There are far more scholars like Pseudo about today than there were in previous ages, when leisure time was scarcer and access to scholarly material rarer.
We will still have bad clergy, but a more educated clergy and more educated laity increase the ease with which the church can restore orthodoxy when required and inhibit its negative tendencies. Educated Catholics understand not only that the Church has authority, but why.
That said, I’m not sure that increased religious literacy has been a strong feature of the last century.
Mask: #96 “I thought sin was the result of our persona imperfections – not a condition of “equality”.”
If one reads any history, such as a history of the National Socialists of Germany or the Communist Party of the USSR, one will find a method of sin which transcends the individual, which makes a state or government evil.
Bereket Kelile: #98 “Indeed, the issue of the church’s authority was a major sticking point during the Protestant Reformation. The idea of giving the people a Bible in their own language was a major upheaval.”
There were nine translations of the scriptures in Germany before Luther published his version. It would appear that the Church was willing to give the people a Bible in their own language without being prodded by the Reformation. The only benefit from Luther is that he published in high German, establishing a standard for Germany.
#98 “How can the Roman church maintain its authority when everyone has access to the scriptures?”
Point well taken. The Yellow Pages in my small city indicate somewhat greater than 60 unique denominations claiming to be biblically inspired and led by the Holy Spirit (if they happen to believe in the Holy Spirit that is). Everyone has access to the scriptures and each makes up his or her own mind about what is written. That recognition, Bereket, is very astute on your part.
For reference purposes, there are eight Baptist, four Lutheran, three Methodist, and three Presbyterian denominations, so agreement within a denominational label is not guaranteed.
But no Liberation Theology branch of any of those as far as I know.
They often use different branding, but if you’re under the impression that “commie Protestant” is a null category, I have some unpleasant news for you. We don’t have so many people using the term in Orthodoxy, either, but the clergy explicitly appointed by the KGB included some folks for whom “RINO” would be too moderate a charge of leftism.
I don’t think there are many Leftist Baptists. Maybe Episcopalians but then they’re closer to Catholics than they are to most Evangelicals.
You might check the voting record of Catholics and Evangelicals if you doubt me.
I have to disagree on the first point. There was opposition to people like Tyndale and Luther translating the Bible into the vernacular and thereby spreading “heretical” teachings.
Regarding denominations, that’s irrelevant to my point. I’m not talking about uniformity. I’m talking about the dilemma of maintaining orthodoxy and private interpretation. It’s a challenge for every denomination.