Last month, our friends at LifeSiteNews conducted an interview with Dr. Claudio Pierantoni, Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the University of Chile, along with several other Catholic Scholars on the topic of the development of doctrine. The occasion was the controversy raised by the pope’s recent comments that the Death Penalty “is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel.” Although LifeSiteNews published links to PDF versions of the full interviews, their final article contained only excerpts of each of the scholars’ full interview responses.
In the interest of providing greater access and attention to the full argument as laid out by Dr. Pierantoni, we are pleased to present to you his interview in its entirety, as we did with Dr. Josef Seifert earlier this month, with the gracious permission of both LifeSiteNews and Professor Pierantoni.
LifeSiteNews interview on the ‘Death Penalty’ address of Pope Francis with Dr. Claudio Pierantoni, Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the University of Chile.
October 20, 2017
(Read original LSN report here: Scholars raise concerns over Pope Francis remarks on how doctrine develops)
LifeSiteNews: Can there ever be a “new understanding” of Christian truth that is contrary to a previous understanding?
Pierantoni: Definitely not: if the principle of non-contradiction is not respected, Christian truth would not be “true” in any rationally verifiable sense. Of course there can be contradictions which are only apparent because they refer to different aspects: in that case, it must be clearly stated to which different aspects the apparently contradictory statement refer. For example, I can say that a man is both black and white: but I must specify that he is black as to his skin, but has white teeth. I can say that the Pope is both fallible and infallible, but then I must specify under which conditions he is infallible.
LifeSiteNews: What is the deposit of faith?
Pierantoni: The word “deposit” has here a juridical meaning: it is a metaphor taken from a juridical technical term. To make a deposit, legally speaking, means an agreement by which the person who receives the thing deposited must faithfully keep it and return and deliver (tradere, traditio) exactly the same thing when asked. So, when the New Testament refers to this concept (e.g. I Tim 6,20: ”Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you (depositum custodi). Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions (antithéseis) of what is falsely called knowledge (pseudonymou gnóseos)” it stresses precisely the point of guarding faithfully its content. But, because what is to be guarded here is not something material, but it is a set of intelligible propositions, the first and most important enemy to be avoided is precisely contradiction to the content of the deposit. Otherwise, we fall into a “false science” (pseudónymos gnosis). The self-called “gnosis” (which modern historians mostly call “gnosticism”) was in fact already a movement of thought that tried to introduce in the deposit of Faith meanings contrary to the original ones, appealing to “secret revelations”.
LifeSiteNews: Is the deposit of faith something static, or can it be added to?
Pierantoni: The deposit of Faith is in itself perfect and definitive. So, nothing can really be added to it. What the Church does is to clarify and make explicit its contents through the Magisterium. But it must be a clarification of what is already there. That’s why, in Christian tradition, “novelty” is practically a synonym of “heresy”. It is interesting to note that in his quotation of the classical passage by Vincent of Lérins (Commonitorium, 23.9: PL 50) about the “development” of doctrine, the Pope mentions only the first part of the sentence:
“In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age…”.
But the passage goes on:
“…and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterated, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits”.
Therefore it is problematic to state that “the Word of God is a dynamic reality, always alive, that progresses and grows”. We, of course, all agree that the Word of God is “always alive”, and also “dynamic”, if this is taken in the sense of “powerful”. But what is in itself perfect –and the Word of God certainly is- obviously cannot “progress” nor “grow”. We may note here an implicit equivalence between “alive and dynamic” on the one hand, and “progress and growth” on the other. But this equivalence is fallacious.
The Word of God cannot “grow”, for it is perfect, and was given to us in Christ once and for all. What progresses and grows is our understanding of it. And, this cannot be in contradiction with past understanding, otherwise, it would be false that the Church as a whole is faithful and infallible in bearing testimony to the Word of God.
LifeSiteNews: What is doctrine?
Pierantoni: Doctrine is a set of statements rationally ordered and connected with one another. The Greek Fathers used the word “akolouthía” (from the same stem as the liturgical word acolyte, “he who follows”) to express the fundamental importance of consistency and harmony among the different statements of Christian doctrine. The true elements of Christian doctrine are handed down from Christ himself through the Apostolic Succession.
LifeSiteNews: How does doctrine genuinely develop? Examples?
Pierantoni: It genuinely develops when a truth that was already there is made explicit in a further statement, without adding or subtracting anything to or from the original truth. For example, when the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople stated that in God there is only one Substance (Ousía) but three Persons (Hypostáseis), it used technical Greek philosophical terms, that are not used in the Holy Scripture. So it needed a hard and long work and a solid argumentation to really make clear that these were the best-suited words to express the truth of what the Bible already says about the unity of God and that Jesus reveals to us through his words about his relation to the Father and to the Holy Spirit.
LifeSiteNews: Is it true that doctrine cannot be tied to an interpretation that is immutable?
Pierantoni: If the interpretation you mention is part of the Magisterium, that is, it has what is required for it to be part of the Magisterium, for example, an interpretation of a biblical passage that is held unanimously or by the great majority of the Church Fathers, we call it a “traditional” interpretation, not because each Father of himself has a kind of infallible authority, but because as a whole they stand as a testimony of a doctrine that the Church as a body has always believed. Once a doctrine has so reached the status of an infallible statement, it is held as “true” in the strict sense, and truth is, as such, necessarily immutable.
So, when the Pope says that something is supposedly “against the Gospel”, we have the right to ask what Tradition says about this topic. In fact, he limits himself to saying, (1) on a natural philosophical ground that the death penalty is generically against “human dignity”, and (2) it is contrary to the Gospel because “life is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator, and God is the only true judge”.
Now that there exists a “human dignity” and that “human life is sacred”, and that “God is the only judge” are truths that are, of course, not denied by the Tradition which supports the death penalty: in fact, the same Tradition gives arguments that show that it doesn’t contradict these truths (see for example Feser’s recent book here.)
So these arguments should be accurately analyzed and responded, not superficially liquidated as “a mere memory of a historical teaching”. I think this statement, in particular, betrays a basic attitude that considers the truths contained in Christian doctrine just as “historical teaching” without taking the trouble of distinguishing what has the characteristics of “infallible teaching”, and therefore cannot by definition, be considered as a “mere memory”, but is clearly something always true.
LifeSiteNews: So, do you think we have here a problematic statement?
Pierantoni: Yes, I think that we have here a double problem: in rational terms, to produce an argument to disprove something which was previously considered as proved, one must take the trouble to show why the specific reasons given for it don’t hold. It is not enough to state some general principle we all accept and then pretend that from it necessarily follow the consequences I wish. And, in theological terms, one must show how it is that a doctrine unanimously subscribed by the whole Church for two millennia is not to be taken as infallible.
In short, the foundations Pope Francis here offers for his statement, both theologically and philosophically, are extremely superficial. No student of theology or philosophy at a basic level would give credit to this statement by the mere appeal to such general principles. Once more, he seems to be asking us to believe what he says just “because he is the Pope”.
LifeSiteNews: What do you think is really going on here when you read between the Pope’s lines?
Pierantoni: My basic impression is that a fundamentally rhetorical technique is being used here. There is a steady and continuous reference to “progress”, “harmonic development” and to “inspiration from the Holy Spirit”, together with an assurance that we don’t have here “any change of doctrine”, but without a rational explanation of why and how a contradictory statement can be “harmonized” with a pre-existing truth. He says: “Tradition is a living reality and only a partial vision can think of the deposit of Faith as something static”. I observe that certainly, Tradition is a living reality that can progress in the clarity with which it expresses the depositum fidei. But “Tradition”, strictly speaking, is not the same as the “Deposit of Faith.” The latter is what cannot change, nor progress, nor grow, because it is the immutable Word of God, given once and for all. In this sense, we must not fear to say it is “static”. It is precisely that which stays, that which doesn’t pass away. As Jesus says, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matt. 24,35).
As Msgr. Brunero Gherardini famously addressed Pope Benedict XVI about Vatican Two ; For the good of the Church – and more specifically for the accomplishment of the “salus animarium” which is her primary and “suprema lex” – after decades of free exegetical, theological, liturgical, historiographical, and pastoral creativity in the name of the Ecumenical Council Vatican Two, it seems to me that it is urgent You offer some clarity by responding in an authoritative manner to the question about the Council’s continuity with the other Councils – not with declamation, but demonstration – and about its fidelity to the ever vigorous Tradition of the Church
The pleas of the now late Thomist fell on deaf ears and we know how the sphinx in Rome will react to any similar plea.
It’s a pleasure to listen to such “catholic” words, in their full sense! This is the way to speak. “Rationabile sit obsequium vestrum”, said St Paul.: “May your reverence be rational”.
I’m begging the men who are in a position to do something about this situation to please do it. It is everyday astounding that the water has boiled and the frogs are all still swimming around in the pot. Pick five of the outrages and if you could have told us ten short years ago these would happen we would have never believed it, we would have said oh surely the Cardinals and the Bishops would never stand for it! But it is all flying apart now, and we have schism, though nobody official has called it. For the love of God will the Cardinals and Bishops please do something now.
It’s uncharted territory to a large degree but sufficient protocol is there to positively undermine
Pope Francis NOW and his tasteless ensemble before the rot deepens.
A big mistake to hope that any immediate successor would care to roll back the damage since the majority
of Cardinals are “tuned in with his mercy beat” or thoroughly impotent.
Unfortunately, most agree with him. And as he appoints more, it will only become worse.
I was tempted to feel down about it too. I’m convinced that the St.Peter-head of Apostolic College has been called by our Lord to strengthen brothers in faith and I hear that the present “Peter” likes to make mess. Well…then I have realized that it’s lack of trust in Christ – who after all is God. He knows what he is doing…why he is allowing that. Of course he surely will see to it…because he is not only merciful but also just. He’ll judge them and me, not according to this what “they judge to be good or bad” but according to His teachings and His mercy. So, let’s trust Him!
Regarding A.L. and it’s architects….
It all boils own to an arbitrary form of written language with the ambiguous craft of a wordsmith.
Our Lord spoke often in parables but the common people understood his teaching. These people
commit sin in my view when their utterances are cloaked in multiple interpretations.
And that is not a work of The Holy Spirit.
Like the “chameleon bishops” who are but weathervanes, careerist’s, and knaves.
How many coats do they actually wear? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86fe1bca7a15049c30d87d43996f38ba1d50658fbbef01056c3fa3f37871413c.gif
So, then…..what is the hold up for the formal correction?
Philosopher after philosopher, theologian after theologian has given Cardinal Burke enough rope to offer a formal correction to Francis. +Burke has given this pope an extraordinary amount of time with all due respect, for it has been a year now since the Dubia.
And in the last year, the Church has seen an exponential growth in Satan’s activity.
What more is needed?
Kindly, sincerely I ask what authority it is you think Cardinal Burke has that he can discipline, stop, quiet, remove, or use to force the Pope to be faithful? I don’t understand. So many people keep saying that Burke, or Muller, or Benedetto should “do” something! Pronto!! On Earth there is only One above the Holy Father, and that Is obviously Jesus Christ — so nothing (that I can see, short of shooting PF) will change his course. There is prayer which Our Lord insisted over and over again that if you want something and it’s good, to pray with trust. I see no other way out of this hole, but if you do – sincerely – give me hope for something less painful than what I think is coming.
Nothing can be done to change the will of Francis.
For me, that is not my concern.
There are times, in the moment of one’s life, in the life of the Church, whereby we do what we do, for it is right and leave the rest to the Lord.
In my opinion the Correction is a way to enter truth into History. You are correct in that Pope Francis will not change his direction because of his critics. But once a formal Correction is “on the books” so to speak, future Bishops and Cardinals will use it to make the necessary changes. Cardinal Burke et al are being very cautious because of the seriousness of the act of Correction. I don’t think Burke has any hope that the Correction will change anything. It is a Formal Act of Cardinals in putting on record the truth as opposed to the falsehoods Francis is teaching. That’s all it is. God Himself will have to give Pope Francis the actual grace to move him towards the truth. He will do it now, or later, or never. Not up to us, that part.
We are impatient because we see souls being led astray. Those we must leave to God. Each of us individually must simply be patient, live a truly Catholic life in peace. When I think of it, Francis is not telling ME to do anything wrong. He is not telling ANYONE to do anything wrong. Those suggestions he makes which are evil can be ignored by EVERY Catholic, EVERY Christian if they so choose. We truly are free in that sense.
Those who listen to Francis and actually DO what he suggests will have to answer for their actions. Let’s leave them to God.
You make a very important point Barbara.
But the integrity of the Truth must be more than just an historical footnote with a wave to the future.
More direct confrontation is needed ( at some point ) to stifle further erosion. This will eventually lead to an historical victory for Church credibility.
“When I think of it, Francis is not telling ME to do anything wrong. He is not telling ANYONE to do anything wrong. Those suggestions he makes which are evil can be ignored by EVERY Catholic, EVERY Christian if they so choose. We truly are free in that sense.”
I know what you mean but too many Sheep have little understanding of matters of the Faith and fine distinctions are
lost to them. I might add that they need to be made to see error clearly AND more action and resistance to the
“architects” will fill their plate and encourage the desired dynamic.
There is a process within the Church’s canon law for qualified members of the hierarchy to correct a pope who is in error. That process allows for a series of steps which, at each stage, calls for the pope to repent, recant his errors and declare his allegiance to the faith and its truths. If a pope refuses, either explicitly or implicitly, to correct his ways, the culmination of the canonical process is the pope will be deposed and excommunicated. We (the members of the Church) cannot force anyone to change their ways, but when they refuse, the Church can exclude them from its ranks. It is very similar to what the Amish call shunning. The hope is that by doing so the damage will be halted and repairs made.
The Word of God cannot “grow”, for it is perfect, and was given to us in Christ once and for all. What progresses and grows is our understanding of it. And, this cannot be in contradiction with past understanding, otherwise, it would be false that the Church as a whole is faithful and infallible in bearing testimony to the Word of God.
– Amen.
Yes, and it would imply that those men and women who have gone before us in Christ were mistaken. Is that possible? No. This is what we mean by the guidance of the Holy Ghost. When some thought has been thought, and taught, and lived for ages and ages it is ‘proven’ to be right. As for me, I’ll go with the Doctors and Fathers of the Church, especially the Saints before I will allow this poor Pope to tell me changes are possible, desirable, and the gifts of the “Holy Spirit” (sic).
Excellent commentary by precise theologian. Elsewhere the question was asked by an Anglican whether the Pontiff is a liberal Protestant. Apostasy is repudiation of Christ. “Tradition is a living reality and only a partial vision can think of the deposit of Faith as something static” (Pope Francis). Dr Claudio Pierantoni in response, “I observe that certainly, Tradition is a living reality that can progress in the clarity with which it expresses the depositum fidei. But ‘Tradition’, strictly speaking, is not the same as the ‘Deposit of Faith.’ The latter is what cannot change, nor progress, nor grow, because it is the immutable Word of God, given once and for all.” Strictly speaking willful change of the words of Christ is denial of their Author. If we compare his orthodox statements to his heterodox repudiations we might best describe him as a conservative apostate.
Ode to the architects…
Fine and dandy as we are
singing for a brandy at the bar
loose with lubrication how we sway
predictive error, now all stray.
Sobering up, in comes delay
line of sight betrays dismay
send truthful sound to ward of noise
lest they see thru our disguise.
Soon time is ripe we’ll show our steel
when they are fewer we can reveal
for such a day we drive, we coast
but not too soon or we end up toast.
Good stuff.
What I find particularly reprehensible about this pontiff is that he will take the words of Scripture and splice, dice, mutilate and take them out of context in order to make them mean exactly the opposite of what the Church has always understood them to mean. Here we have an example of him doing the same with the Fathers i.e. the Commonitorium of St Vincent of Lerins. Prof. Pierantoni has caught him out in his deceit and illustrated why this man is so dangerous. He cannot be taken at face value and all the citations he uses must be checked because it seems he has a pathological desire to twist anything to make it mean exactly what he wants it to mean.
His modus operandi is reminiscent of another character we see turning up in the Scriptures using exactly the same tactics to dupe, deceive, mislead and draw people away from God. It seems far more than diabolical disorientation and indicates a malevolent, manipulative will which is acting with cunning and deliberation. A formal correction is needed, but nothing short of an exorcism will be required to deal with the root cause of the problem.
I am so glad to have an opportunity to understand one of those difficult things about the Faith. I hope someone out there can answer my question. Dr. Pierantoni said: “But what is in itself perfect –and the Word of God certainly is- obviously cannot “progress” nor “grow”. ” Here’s the question: how then did Our Lord as a boy, age 12, once found in the Temple by Ss. Mary and Joseph, leaving obediently with them “grow in wisdom and grace”? Surely He, the literal Word of God was utterly Perfect, and yet, scripture says that He grew in wisdom and grace. Is this to be understood as purely, solely His human experiential knowledge? But wouldn’t that make His level of “wisdom and grace” at that time “less than perfect” — do you see my point? I’m not denying the faith; actually, I love reading (good) theology (at my level) because it DOES all support and refer back to itself without contradiction. In theology and therefore the Faith, words must be extremely precise to stay in God’s orbit.
The Word was made Flesh. Our Lord has both a human and Divine nature in time recorded.
HIS growth in Wisdom and Grace signifies his direct and constant union through prayer with the
Father.
Having taken on the flesh of Adam HE was a perfect human being given that he is GOD (second person
of The Triune God).
However HE had to experience the “the stages of growth” common to all humanity in order to PERFECT
and by example redeem us. This HE achieved but WITHOUT SIN.
And without doubt HE suffered REAL temptation and pain long before the Crucifixion.
I ask: How can an apostate be Pope? For by his words and deeds, he most clearly is. We may not judge him, but must we be blind and deaf? He has revealed a heirachy, who mostly agree. Can the Church be led be such a man? Where is the actual Catholic Church in these days? His “God of Surprises” was a warning to me. I will sincerely and happily be disabused of this notion.
Maybe one of the reasons for the confusion is the Church’s new and false idea, that human life is sacred, even in the. womb. Unborn life in the womb is inviolable – but there is nothing sacred about it. (The inability of the Church today to use the correct words for things is very alarming, for obvious reasons.) If the unborn foetus is sacred, why bother with Baptism ? If the (supposedly) already holy baby is baptised, making it holy can’t be a result of Baptism, so Baptosmust be an outward sign that does not cause the sanctification of the infant, but merely witnesses to it.
All humanity is sacred because it is made in the image and likeness of God, and “purchased at a great price”. Sanctification comes with Baptism which Divinizes it, becoming a child of God.