Given the news today that Pope Leo will name Cardinal Newman as a doctor of the Church, I wanted to reshare my essay from last year about what Newman and the Magisterium say about development of doctrine.
In this view why follow the present Magisterium? Because Popes? Popes are wrong, as you mentioned with Vix Pervenit. Councils? They’re wrong, see Florence. Scripture? Opaque, only the Pope can interpret it, and it can be contradicted.
Do you only trust and give respectful deference to authorities who are never wrong?
I think that's the key here. The Church doesn't demand blind obedience. If it did then I would expect it to be free from all error or deficiency in everything it taught. But it doesn't. It asks for trust and respectful deference. So I don't expect it to be perfect.
Arch-progressives (just kidding) like Cardinal Dulles and Dr. Larry Chapp have pointed out that “religious submission" to Church teaching means trusting and respectful deference, not blind obedience.
What is meant by deference? I assumed it meant that someone would take a teaching under advisement, give it the benefit of the doubt, and maybe assume it unless they had reasons to judge differently: but that they could judge differently if they had reasons they thought outweighed the judgement of the Church.
This is such a tremendous article. Should be required reading in the seminary. It’s part of my curriculum at Niagara U.
Thank you! I feel honored about that. I’m glad it’s helpful
In this view why follow the present Magisterium? Because Popes? Popes are wrong, as you mentioned with Vix Pervenit. Councils? They’re wrong, see Florence. Scripture? Opaque, only the Pope can interpret it, and it can be contradicted.
What grounds the Magisterium?
Do you only trust and give respectful deference to authorities who are never wrong?
I think that's the key here. The Church doesn't demand blind obedience. If it did then I would expect it to be free from all error or deficiency in everything it taught. But it doesn't. It asks for trust and respectful deference. So I don't expect it to be perfect.
The Church demands acceptance of her teachings, not just respectful deference. Deference alone would be uncontroversial.
But assuming that mere respectful deference is given to the Church’s teachings, what ought one to use to evaluate her teachings?
Arch-progressives (just kidding) like Cardinal Dulles and Dr. Larry Chapp have pointed out that “religious submission" to Church teaching means trusting and respectful deference, not blind obedience.
What is meant by deference? I assumed it meant that someone would take a teaching under advisement, give it the benefit of the doubt, and maybe assume it unless they had reasons to judge differently: but that they could judge differently if they had reasons they thought outweighed the judgement of the Church.
Is that not what’s meant?