Francis' Moto Proprio and "Inductive Theology"

[Gandalf the Grey]

Now, I'm not saying that I'm deep into the various academic debates regarding Theological methods of study, and setting aside the blatant straw-manning it makes in regards to traditional deductive methods of Theology, but using the "inductive" method to Theology as not merely secondary method among others and to be measured against Sacred Tradition but rather as a "paradigm shift" which places this method above all others....this seems to me to be an absolutely terrible idea, especially when it regards to determining moral theology.

At the very least it seems to take Hume's observation regarding the Naturalistic Fallacy and turns it on it's head. You simply cannot derive "ought" from "is." You cannot take "concrete lived experiences" and say that the understanding of Divine Revelation must be "developed" in order to "fit" that "experience." The semantic wordplay involved in those proposition border on sophistry.

There's a reason why Emmanuel Kant said that when it comes to the moral life, "experience....is the mother of illusion." Man doing only "what is right in his own eyes," was never a positive statement, it was always a sign of impending chaos and catastrophe. It's not just asking, but seems rather that it's demanding, that we must change our understanding of God in that God must conform to human desires instead of the necessity of man needing to conform to God's desires of how God made us.

Which seems to me beg the question: namely who exactly is "God" supposed to be in this new "paradigm shift" or vision of "theology?"

[Stella]

Now, I'm not saying that I'm deep into the various academic debates regarding Theological methods of study, and setting aside the blatant straw-manning it makes in regards to traditional deductive methods of Theology, but using the "inductive" method to Theology as not merely secondary method among others and to be measured against Sacred Tradition but rather as a "paradigm shift" which places this method above all others....this seems to me to be an absolutely terrible idea, especially when it regards to determining moral theology.

At the very least it seems to take Hume's observation regarding the Naturalistic Fallacy and turns it on it's head. You simply cannot derive "ought" from "is." You cannot take "concrete lived experiences" and say that the understanding of Divine Revelation must be "developed" in order to "fit" that "experience." The semantic wordplay involved in those proposition border on sophistry.

There's a reason why Emmanuel Kant said that when it comes to the moral life, "experience....is the mother of illusion." Man doing only "what is right in his own eyes," was never a positive statement, it was always a sign of impending chaos and catastrophe. It's not just asking, but seems rather that it's demanding, that we must change our understanding of God in that God must conform to human desires instead of the necessity of man needing to conform to God's desires of how God made us.

Which seems to me beg the question: namely who exactly is "God" supposed to be in this new "paradigm shift" or vision of "theology?"

My response isn’t one backed by scholarship as a theologian. I fit the ‘wanna be’ category in the Lyceum. Ironically though I suspect that’s the point of this moto proprio. We (ordinary folk) have something our parents and grandparents didn’t have. Access to every document that comes out of the Vatican to read and have opinions and reflections about. Synods and councils used only be hearing voices of Bishops and theologians referencing earlier Church teachings and educated in a certain style of deduction.

What a completely different scene exists today. Jesus told us that the gifts of the Spirit were spread throughout the people of God but the need to protect and preserve the Church in times of persecution required certain fortification and closed-ness. All these Catholic voices around the world contributing from local experiences and cultures and traditions and with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, warrant a shift up in the way Catholic teaching is understood and communicated.

That reminds me of Peter to the faithful (not only the leadership) not long before his own death…

3 His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and excellence. 4 Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust and may become participants of the divine nature. 5 For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with excellence, and excellence with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, 7 and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and are increasing among you, they keep you from being ineffective and unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For anyone who lacks these things is blind, suffering from eye disease, forgetful of the cleansing of past sins. 10 Therefore, brothers and sisters, be all the more eager to confirm your call and election, for if you do this, you will never stumble. 11 For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you.

12 Therefore I intend to keep on reminding you of these things, though you know them already and are established in the truth that has come to you. 13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to refresh your memory, 14 since I know that my death will come soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things. 2 Peter 1

[Gandalf the Grey]

My response isn’t one backed by scholarship as a theologian. I fit the ‘wanna be’ category in the Lyceum. Ironically though I suspect that’s the point of this moto proprio. We (ordinary folk) have something our parents and grandparents didn’t have. Access to every document that comes out of the Vatican to read and have opinions and reflections about. Synods and councils used only be hearing voices of Bishops and theologians referencing earlier Church teachings and educated in a certain style of deduction.

What a completely different scene exists today. Jesus told us that the gifts of the Spirit were spread throughout the people of God but the need to protect and preserve the Church in times of persecution required certain fortification and closed-ness. All these Catholic voices around the world contributing from local experiences and cultures and traditions and with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, warrant a shift up in the way Catholic teaching is understood and communicated.

That's a cool story and all.

But, sorry, AFAIC anyone going around who's bragging and boasting about having "the Holy Spirit" is someone who I'm pretty sure that doesn't actually have the Holy Spirit.

Someone who is going around and saying that you don't have to obey the moral imperatives of the Church, or that you don't have to repent and confess mortal sins, or that we must be "inclusive" of people who insist upon inflicting their false ideological beliefs onto the Church's ancient and well-attested Theology(that includes anyone trying to make "gender" or "queer" theory cult-ideology into something like an eighth sacrament), who says that there is no such thing as Sacred Tradition or a Deposit of the Faith, doesn't have the Holy Spirit.

Scripture repeatedly warns against false prophets who have gone out of the Church without being sent and who claim to speak in the Holy Spirit. Those who preach false Gospels.

Jesus says "Beware of false prophets, who come in sheep's clothing but are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you shall know them."

And "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers."

Paul says, "But if even we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one you received, let that one be accursed."

John the Evangelist in his letter wrote, "Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

I'm testing the "spirit" of this new "paradigm shift" and I'm finding it seriously lacking. It seems more like it resembles the spirit of Hegel, Rousseau, or Marx than it resembles the Spirit of God.

[Stella]

Do you believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit for the building up of the Church, (Eph 4) are given among the faithful? If so do you believe there's a need to recognise these gifts in a formal way under the umbrella of the Magisterium?

That's why synodality. That's why the 'listening' Church. That's why inductive theology.

Non Catholic Christianity is actually not wrong in recognising themselves as 'a Priestly people' but their downfall is in having no umbrella by which to test and confirm and make use of those gifts for the building up of the Church. Outside of the Church it's become each to his own Christianity. Mini popes everywhere lacking unity.

[Gandalf the Grey]

Do you believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit for the building up of the Church, (Eph 4) are given among the faithful?

I find nothing in Ephesians 4 that states that the Spirit is unconditionally given in full measure among even the faithful to the point that they are somehow legitimized to dictate what constitutes "doctrine" based on something as spurious as "lived experience."

There is nothing in there that says that the Spirit is given in any such measure to anyone for any reason.

The Spirit is the Spirit of the Church. You partake in that Spirit so long as you remain faithful to Christ's teachings and His commandments. If you're disobedient to Christ and His commandments, even if you claim association to the Church, you do not have His Spirit.

Martin Luther was a Dominican friar the night he nailed his 95 thesis to Wittenberg church. Do you believe that he had a greater measure of the Spirit than the Church when He did that?

John Calvin was a catholic and a lawyer before he wrote his "Institutes". Did he have a greater measure of the Spirit than the Apostles when he decided that the Church was wrong?

Henry VIII was given the title "Defender of the Faith" by the Pope before he decided that he wanted a new wife because the old one wasn't working out for him. Did he have the Spirit when he decided that he wanted to divorce Catherine after the Church told him he wasn't permitted to set her aside for a younger and prettier model?

"If so do you believe there's a need to recognise these gifts in a formal way under the umbrella of the Magisterium?"

There's no need. As Christ already stated, "by their fruits you shall know them."

When someone like James Martin is pushing Queer Theory cult ideology over and against the constant teaching of God and the Church, he practically demonstrates to all that the "spirit" driving him isn't the Holy Spirit.

"Blessed is the one that does not condemn themselves by what they approve."

That's why synodality. That's why the 'listening' Church. That's why inductive theology.

You're going to have to elaborate on how you get here, because that doesn't follow in any logical way at all.

For starters "Synodality" by every account and definition is limited to bishops.

As regards to "the listening Church"...a Church that listens to the laity at the expense of God or the Eternal Truths of Divine Revelation is no longer a Church, it's just a mere social organization or club.

And if people like you just want a social club that will acquiesce to whatever you want it to be, then why not just find one or start your own?

And as regards to "inductive theology"....as I said above, it's nonsense and literally 🫏-backwards when it comes to logic. It's technically impossible even. You cannot derive "ought" from "is," you cannot create "new" doctrine based on "lived experience" because that "experience" doesn't say anything about whether or not it is even ethical much less doctrinal. Any attempt to assign an ethical idea to that "experience" doesn't come from the experience itself, it comes from YOU and your sensual or habitual appetite to that "experience."

To use an extreme example say that there is a guy who calls himself "Catholic" who also really likes defrauding the middle class and stealing from the poor. Under your "inductive" method he has as much right to take his pragmatic and obviously successful view on life and reinterpret Divine Revelation as such to create an entire systematic theology defending the practice that he's currently doing that his "lived experience" and his apparently obvious connection to the Holy Spirit sanctions such a theology.

Now, of course you'll just say that's absurd or that no one would do that. Which is an irrelevant argument.

The point is that you have literally no grounds in which to claim that his way of doing "inductive theology" is any better or worse than you or anyone else. His new "Theology" is perfectly legitimate based on that inductive method.

This is what you get when you make doctrine subjective and relative.

Inductive Theology has its own necessary limits. It's fine when you're engaged in private personal reading of scripture trying to determine where God is trying to lead you in your own personal faith journey.

It has no business being the supposed method in regards to Theology. We already have the fullness of Divine Revelation. The idea that we can come up with something "better" based on something as mundane as our "lived experience" is frankly as dumb and arrogant as it is insipid.

Non Catholic Christianity is actually not wrong in recognising themselves as 'a Priestly people' but their downfall is in having no umbrella by which to test and confirm and make use of those gifts for the building up of the Church. Outside of the Church it's become each to his own Christianity. Mini popes everywhere lacking unity.

Which you ironically would literally bring into the Church with this nonsense.

What you're defending is exactly what lead to the crisis and schism of the Episcopal/Anglican Church and which has also necessarily lead to what's happening in Germany. Counterproductive doesn't even begin to describe it. It's nothing but an invitation towards an absolutist religious subjectivism where everyone assumes that by mere dint of calling themselves "Catholic" they have some direct pipeline to God.

It's nonsense. It's the sin of Korah all over again. I'm sorry, but no, no layperson does not "hear God" just as good as a bishop, or an Apostle. The ones that claim that they do it's for nothing but to make themselves look like they're special, to edify and exalt themselves, to give their frankly dumb and uninspired personal opinions the pretense of having some "divine stamp of approval." And therefore the possibility that they, being mired in this modernist culture ripe with all of its false ideologies and narcissistic tendencies, has something to offer that even comes remotely to the level of being sufficient enough to change the Eternal Truths of Divine Revelation is next to nil.

False prophets abound in such a system as what you're promoting.

[Stella]

Do you believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit for the building up of the Church, (Eph 4) are given among the faithful?

I find nothing in Ephesians 4 that states that the Spirit is unconditionally given in full measure among even the faithful to the point that they are somehow legitimized to dictate what constitutes "doctrine" based on something as spurious as "lived experience."

There is nothing in there that says that the Spirit is given in any such measure to anyone for any reason.

The Spirit is the Spirit of the Church. You partake in that Spirit so long as you remain faithful to Christ's teachings and His commandments. If you're disobedient to Christ and His commandments, even if you claim association to the Church, you do not have His Spirit.

hmmm You accused me of gaslighting you when I asked a basic question. Do any of your above accusations about my post stir some self reflection?

I await your scorn filled, vitriolic tirade.

[zeno]

I try to allow free flowing conversation but could we please take it down a notch?

Zeno
StillDCF Admin

[Stella]

I'm genuinely trying to but I'm struggling to find the right responses. Sorry.

[Gandalf the Grey]

Do you believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit for the building up of the Church, (Eph 4) are given among the faithful?

I find nothing in Ephesians 4 that states that the Spirit is unconditionally given in full measure among even the faithful to the point that they are somehow legitimized to dictate what constitutes "doctrine" based on something as spurious as "lived experience."

There is nothing in there that says that the Spirit is given in any such measure to anyone for any reason.

The Spirit is the Spirit of the Church. You partake in that Spirit so long as you remain faithful to Christ's teachings and His commandments. If you're disobedient to Christ and His commandments, even if you claim association to the Church, you do not have His Spirit.

hmmm You accused me of gaslighting you when I asked a basic question. Do any of your above accusations about my post stir some self reflection?

I await your scorn filled, vitriolic tirade.

Well, gaslighting is defined particularly by the accusation that someone who is seeing something happen isn't really seeing it, which is what you were doing.

If you came to me saying that something was happening to you, and I responded with something like, "Oh, that's nonsense, you're just imagining it," how exactly would you characterize my response to you?

As to the rest, what exactly should I self-reflect about? I don't go around assuming and asserting that my every statement has the weight of being God's word. That would a be ridiculous thing for me to assume. What I do is strive to adhere to that Revelation. I don't pretend that I'm perfect or that I don't make mistakes.

I do strive to be honest and tell the truth as I see it in all things. I'm not offended by honest criticism. What I am offended by are attempts at manipulation, dishonesty, and for lack of a better word BS artistry.


So do you actually have something salient or relevant regarding the post I made above or the subject matter? Because AFAIC all I really see behind this "paradigm shift" regarding theology is that Francis and other Progressivist/Relativists in the Church see things like "Tradition" in the Marxist view of "the status quo" and generally Sacred Tradition- and specifically current Theological and moral imperatives that Traditionalists defend -as "bourgeois property," and hence when it comes to almost every endeavor in that Marxist "spirit" their endeavor is essentially "the abolishment of bourgeois property." They want to "democratize"(as in the Marxist version of "democracy") theology, not because it will in any way improve Theology, but rather just as the excuse to negate the status quo and abolish those Theological and Moral imperatives that demand conformity to God's will for humanity.

Except the Church isn't a democracy, it's a monarchy. Which it follows means that they also apparently want to abolish the Church, or at least make the Church as the Kingdom utterly unrecognizable. A mere social club.

If I wanted just a social club where I could just do my own thing and never have to worry about anything like eternity by just assuming that whatever god might be out there would just save me regardless of however I lived, I would never taken the trouble to bother with the Church to begin with, I would have just remained an atheist.

Now, I might be wrong. Perhaps you can tell me how I'm mistaken. I'm still waiting....


Or are you just going to spend the rest of the thread trying to make this about me? Because while I do find your interest in me mildly flattering, I generally don't find myself all that interesting and really don't like talking about myself either.