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