tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post8219642237052232986..comments2024-03-22T18:43:00.710-04:00Comments on Unam Sanctam Catholicam: FAITH Magazine's definitions of "Inspiration"Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-24603351084670863572012-01-13T17:37:17.172-05:002012-01-13T17:37:17.172-05:00We need not, I think, be too averse from calling t...We need not, I think, be too averse from calling the definition of the second theologian modernist. In fact, it seems to be a text-book example of how they understand doctrine - rather than inspiration. For the modernist, doctrine is the intellectual expression of an individual or group's experience of God's pervasive presence (as posited in immanentism), rather than a body of truths which are true independently of the experiences of any individual or group. One of many unhappy corollaries of this view, it would seem, is that Christ is both the son of God and is not, for if the 'son-of-God tradition' of Catholicism did not 'faithfully capture' the early Church's 'experience of God' it would not have been passed on as a tradition; and the same would have happened if subsequent generations had not 'experienced it as compelling'. I don't know about about the nutritional value of this magazine's being equal to styrofoam; I rather suspect that such publications are like small but regular doses of poison.Tony W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02167111142050752619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-50339130734367328532012-01-08T19:10:32.572-05:002012-01-08T19:10:32.572-05:00You know, I thought the same thing about the term ...You know, I thought the same thing about the term modernism...but this quote does seem to be in line with St. Pius X's idea.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-57023174480739956402012-01-08T19:00:07.218-05:002012-01-08T19:00:07.218-05:00I often try to avoid the term "modernism"...I often try to avoid the term "modernism" because it has become too broad, but it does seem to me that the last quote is properly an example of modernism in the specific sense in which it was explained and opposed by Pope St Pius X-- that is to say, theology that reduces all religion to "spiritual experience" and the external forms of religion to the broad socialization and cultural expressions of these basic experiences. I do not like to throw the term around too wildly, but, at least based on the small piece you have shared here, this is a proper example of modernism (as opposed to rationalism, atheism, secularism, and anything else that might generally be condemned under the blanket term of modernism).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-89204034862281387792012-01-08T17:45:59.250-05:002012-01-08T17:45:59.250-05:00I have modified the post to address your points.I have modified the post to address your points.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-50259543107153927022012-01-08T17:18:34.583-05:002012-01-08T17:18:34.583-05:00Thank you for these distinctions. The author did n...Thank you for these distinctions. The author did not make any distinction between "mechanical dictation" and "dictation", so neither did I. By her attribution of "mechanical dictation" to the traditional depiction of an evangelist with an angel whispering in his ear, I can only assume that what she meant by "mechanical dictation" was what the Church has traditionally understood by dictation.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-79688348872160771732012-01-08T15:49:36.752-05:002012-01-08T15:49:36.752-05:00It looks to me like the second theologian (Elizabe...It looks to me like the second theologian (Elizabeth Nagel?) is not intending to give a positive definition of inspiration, but seems to hold that the Church is still in the process of rethinking what inspiration means, and her comment is not aimed at defining inspiration (it obviously isn't a definition, at any rate), but just at saying something about some reflections by "the Church" (through the Pontifical Biblical Commission).<br /><br />Regarding Fr. Schoenstene's rejection of "mechanical dictation", you don't make any mention of the "mechanical" there, a term which is also not used in any of the texts you cite. It seems that what he is saying the Church has rejected is the position that the person who wrote Scripture down is no more its true author than, for example, the scribe who write down Paul's words is the author of Paul's epistles. The Church has indeed rejected this position by teaching that while God is a true and the primary author of Scripture, the human author is also a true author. This cannot be said of a scribe, that he is a true author of the text.Joseph Bolinhttp://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/noreply@blogger.com