Rome - Changing it's Teachings and Still Remaining "Infallible"
The Roman Church is always looking for ways to explain her contradictory teachings, and Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Inquisition) Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger recently demonstrated that the Catholic Church can do a complete reversal in teaching, and yet still claim the "Church" does not contradict itself.
Reviewing a 'nota' (notice) published July 1, 2001 by Ratzinger, the January 25 issue of the 'National Catholic Reporter,' (NCR) in an article titled, "Ratzinger Explains How Condemnation Was Right Then, Wrong Now," tells how "the 'nota'...lifts the condemnation of 40 propositions drawn from the philosophical work of Antonio Rosmini pronounced in 1887 and then explains how the magisterium can do this without involving itself in an internal contradiction." So - the magisterium in 1887 condemned Rosmini, but then in 2001 the magisterium said Rosmini is NOT condemned!
TV villain JR Ewing in the old 'Dallas' series said, "Once you give up integrity, the rest is easy," and this accurately describes the teaching principles followed by Rome. The NCR article asks, "is this a switch," with regard to the new pronouncement? "'No,' says Ratzinger. He admits that a 'superficial reading' of these events suggests an 'intrinsic and objective contradiction' in the magisterium. But 'an attentive reading,' he explains, interprets the (1887) decree...'in the light of it's historical context and thus reveals it's true meaning.'"
Ohhhhhh, I get it! Anyone claiming there is a contradiction is only giving it a 'superficial reading,' whereas anyone giving it 'an attentive reading' can now see it's true meaning! And pray tell, who are the ONLY ones capable of 'an attentive reading?' I'll bet it's the magisterium!
The shell game Ratzinger is running here is that he says the 1887 condemnation of Rosmini's writings was "read from a neo-Thomistic perspective...and hence rightly deserved ecclesiastical condemnation." Translated, this means Rome in 1887 was using the analytical methods of St. Thomas Aquinas, which resulted in the condemnation of the 40 propositions.
But guess what!? To quote from the NCR article again, "Today the situation is DIFFERENT (emphasis mine). First, according to Ratzinger, serious research has shown that if Rosmini's ambiguous and obscure passages are interpreted in the light of his own philosophical work, which is, of course, the only honest way of reading philosophical text, THEN (emphasis mine) their meaning is not contrary to the Catholic tradition."
So - the 'nota' says that because of these new "research" methods, the 1887 condemnation "can now be superseded." Ohhhhhh, I get it! Rome never contradicts it's teachings, they just "supersede" them! That's mighty convenient!
Therefore in order to justify contradicting itself, Rome is going to start saying they are using new methods of interpretation that "supersede" the old. For example in this case, an interpretation based on the "historical-cultural factors," to quote the 'nota,' now supersedes the neo-Thomistic interpretation of 1887. A key sentence in the NCR article states, "Still, the 'nota' is an important document since it is the first time an ecclesial statement wrestles with a question that has troubled Catholics for a long time. How are we to interpret apparent contradictions in the magisterium?"
VERY interesting. Rome has a lot of baggage from over the centuries that will stick out like a sore thumb in the ecumenical age the pope desires, like the 1302 'Unam Sanctum,' which says submission to the pope is necessary for salvation, so Rome is starting to cook up new interpretation methods to cover for their previous lies.
Rome's problem is its lies can never stand on their own - they can only be covered by more lies. Proverbs 12:19 says, "THE LIP OF TRUTH SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR EVER: BUT A LYING TONGUE IS BUT FOR A MOMENT." May many Catholics see the "LYING TONGUE" of Rome, repent of their Catholicism, and receive Christ by faith ALONE.
Reviewing a 'nota' (notice) published July 1, 2001 by Ratzinger, the January 25 issue of the 'National Catholic Reporter,' (NCR) in an article titled, "Ratzinger Explains How Condemnation Was Right Then, Wrong Now," tells how "the 'nota'...lifts the condemnation of 40 propositions drawn from the philosophical work of Antonio Rosmini pronounced in 1887 and then explains how the magisterium can do this without involving itself in an internal contradiction." So - the magisterium in 1887 condemned Rosmini, but then in 2001 the magisterium said Rosmini is NOT condemned!
TV villain JR Ewing in the old 'Dallas' series said, "Once you give up integrity, the rest is easy," and this accurately describes the teaching principles followed by Rome. The NCR article asks, "is this a switch," with regard to the new pronouncement? "'No,' says Ratzinger. He admits that a 'superficial reading' of these events suggests an 'intrinsic and objective contradiction' in the magisterium. But 'an attentive reading,' he explains, interprets the (1887) decree...'in the light of it's historical context and thus reveals it's true meaning.'"
Ohhhhhh, I get it! Anyone claiming there is a contradiction is only giving it a 'superficial reading,' whereas anyone giving it 'an attentive reading' can now see it's true meaning! And pray tell, who are the ONLY ones capable of 'an attentive reading?' I'll bet it's the magisterium!
The shell game Ratzinger is running here is that he says the 1887 condemnation of Rosmini's writings was "read from a neo-Thomistic perspective...and hence rightly deserved ecclesiastical condemnation." Translated, this means Rome in 1887 was using the analytical methods of St. Thomas Aquinas, which resulted in the condemnation of the 40 propositions.
But guess what!? To quote from the NCR article again, "Today the situation is DIFFERENT (emphasis mine). First, according to Ratzinger, serious research has shown that if Rosmini's ambiguous and obscure passages are interpreted in the light of his own philosophical work, which is, of course, the only honest way of reading philosophical text, THEN (emphasis mine) their meaning is not contrary to the Catholic tradition."
So - the 'nota' says that because of these new "research" methods, the 1887 condemnation "can now be superseded." Ohhhhhh, I get it! Rome never contradicts it's teachings, they just "supersede" them! That's mighty convenient!
Therefore in order to justify contradicting itself, Rome is going to start saying they are using new methods of interpretation that "supersede" the old. For example in this case, an interpretation based on the "historical-cultural factors," to quote the 'nota,' now supersedes the neo-Thomistic interpretation of 1887. A key sentence in the NCR article states, "Still, the 'nota' is an important document since it is the first time an ecclesial statement wrestles with a question that has troubled Catholics for a long time. How are we to interpret apparent contradictions in the magisterium?"
VERY interesting. Rome has a lot of baggage from over the centuries that will stick out like a sore thumb in the ecumenical age the pope desires, like the 1302 'Unam Sanctum,' which says submission to the pope is necessary for salvation, so Rome is starting to cook up new interpretation methods to cover for their previous lies.
Rome's problem is its lies can never stand on their own - they can only be covered by more lies. Proverbs 12:19 says, "THE LIP OF TRUTH SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR EVER: BUT A LYING TONGUE IS BUT FOR A MOMENT." May many Catholics see the "LYING TONGUE" of Rome, repent of their Catholicism, and receive Christ by faith ALONE.
posted by Robt. B. at 10:56 AM
<< Home