Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bbnccv.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!bbnccv!sdyer From: sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Re**3 Rosen's lack of..etc Message-ID: <87@bbnccv.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Mar-85 12:50:30 EST Article-I.D.: bbnccv.87 Posted: Sun Mar 3 12:50:30 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 20:25:58 EST References: <1621V6M@PSUVM> Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA Lines: 17 > As for the postion of the church on Infallibility changing that is > INCORRECT!!!!. There are some wrong theologians challenging it but that is > NOT the Church. I think Vince is being a little ungracious here. The theologian's job is to speculate and interpret ("faith seeking understanding".) Theologians may propose something which isn't consonant with current Church understanding, and one would be wrong to confuse that with official Magisterial teaching. But that doesn't make a theologian "wrong". At best, one might clarify the distinction between what the Church teaches and what the theologian proposes. It is a little short-sighted to look upon such healthy inquiry and debate as "wrong", for much of what we take for granted as part of our belief, was originally be labelled as "wrong", or at least uncodified. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA