Can dogmas be 're-formulated'...(changed)?

[westboro]

It seems that the Catechism suggests a ‘change’ to dogmatic teaching whereas it states in section 846: “re-formulated positively”.
It is my understanding as a Catholic that dogmatic teaching CANNOT be changed under any circumstance…even by a Pope.
Yet clearly the current Catechism suggests ‘changing’ the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” by its use of the word “reformulated”.
I checked the Latin translation which supports this wording, so it is not a ‘translation’ error. Seemingly, Blessed John Paul II attempted to ‘change’ dogmatic teaching, which of course is contrary to Catholic teaching. I should note that the Catechism bears the Imprimatur of the then Cardinal Ratzinger who of course is the current Pope.
I fully understand the intention of the Pope, but I am concerned that this ‘loophole’ can cause Catholics to question every dogma of the church.
Any thoughts or (name removed by moderator)ut on this would be appreciated!!!

 

[JM3]

On Dogmas;

newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

The divisions of dogma follow the lines of the divisions of faith. Dogmas can be (1) general or special; (2) material or formal; (3) pure or mixed; (4) symbolic or non-symbolic; (5) and they can differ according to their various degrees of necessity.

Council of Florence

SESSION 11 4 February 1442

It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel. It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practicing the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased. It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died; although for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.

 

[JimmytheButcher]

Nope, they cannot change.

Understandings can develop but never become nuanced.

 

[MarkThompson]

It seems that the Catechism suggests a ‘change’ to dogmatic teaching whereas it states in section 846: “re-formulated positively”.
It is my understanding as a Catholic that dogmatic teaching CANNOT be changed under any circumstance…even by a Pope.
Yet clearly the current Catechism suggests ‘changing’ the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” by its use of the word “reformulated”.
I checked the Latin translation which supports this wording, so it is not a ‘translation’ error. Seemingly, Blessed John Paul II attempted to ‘change’ dogmatic teaching, which of course is contrary to Catholic teaching. I should note that the Catechism bears the Imprimatur of the then Cardinal Ratzinger who of course is the current Pope.
I fully understand the intention of the Pope, but I am concerned that this ‘loophole’ can cause Catholics to question every dogma of the church.
Any thoughts or (name removed by moderator)ut on this would be appreciated!!!

This paragraph of the Catechism is not an injunction to “reformulate doctrines positively.” It merely provides a way of understanding the doctrine by looking at it from the other side (tracing the action of God’s grace through the Church). It is not the job of a catechism to list doctrinal formulations – get Denzinger if you want that. The purpose of a catechism is to unravel and explain things so that people can understand where they came from, why they’re true, and what they mean. In the case of paragraph 846, this obviously does not imply any change in the doctrine itself, just a different formulation of the same thing to better show why it makes sense.

E.g.:
Negative formulation: Anyone who arrives at our wedding reception after 8:00 will receive no cake whatsoever. Got that? If you come later, no cake.

Positive formulation: Many things have to be done at the reception, and we are on a tight schedule because we only have the hall until 9:30. All the cake will be cut and handed out to guests at 8:00, because then we have to move on to toasts and the first dance.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Nope, they cannot change.

Understandings can develop but never become nuanced.

Very good response, I too was going to say this.

Dogmas do not change, becuase they are Truth, and Truth does not change, perhaps how we understand the truth.

 

[westboro]

This paragraph of the Catechism is not an injunction to “reformulate doctrines positively.” It merely provides a way of understanding the doctrine by looking at it from the other side (tracing the action of God’s grace through the Church). It is not the job of a catechism to list doctrinal formulations – get Denzinger if you want that. The purpose of a catechism is to unravel and explain things so that people can understand where they came from, why they’re true, and what they mean. In the case of paragraph 846, this obviously does not imply any change in the doctrine itself, just a different formulation of the same thing to better show why it makes sense.

E.g.:
Negative formulation: Anyone who arrives at our wedding reception after 8:00 will receive no cake whatsoever. Got that? If you come later, no cake.

Positive formulation: Many things have to be done at the reception, and we are on a tight schedule because we only have the hall until 9:30. All the cake will be cut and handed out to guests at 8:00, because then we have to move on to toasts and the first dance.

It seems to me that ‘understanding’ weakens faith. In other words, seeing is NOT believing and as such, one is actually going backwards in the pursuit to understand dogma totally. As a cradle Catholic, I was taught to accept Catholic doctrine without question. ‘Re-formulating’ dogma to understand it is not conducive to increase and deepen faith, but rather it waters down and weakens the same. Does that make sense?
In so far as the dogma in question, it never occurred to me that ANYONE would be barred from heaven. I did feel ‘concern’ for non-Catholics and prayed for them but never felt that God would be unjust or unfair because that would be contrary to His nature.
What does concern me is that the wording of the Catechism seems to open the door to ‘re-formulating’ all the dogmas of the church. If it works with one, why not all of them?

 

[Leon_Bloy]

I don’t think that the essence of dogmas subsist in their wording, but in their meaning. The words are an articulation of a unchangeable truth - the words are not the dogma itself.

 

[TimothyH]

It seems to me that ‘understanding’ weakens faith. In other words, seeing is NOT believing and as such, one is actually going backwards in the pursuit to understand dogma totally. As a cradle Catholic, I was taught to accept Catholic doctrine without question. ‘Re-formulating’ dogma to understand it is not conducive to increase and deepen faith, but rather it waters down and weakens the same. Does that make sense?
In so far as the dogma in question, it never occurred to me that ANYONE would be barred from heaven. I did feel ‘concern’ for non-Catholics and prayed for them but never felt that God would be unjust or unfair because that would be contrary to His nature.
What does concern me is that the wording of the Catechism seems to open the door to ‘re-formulating’ all the dogmas of the church. If it works with one, why not all of them?

Diadochus of Photike, the sixth century bishop and theologian, wrote about moving from faith to knowledge, that is, moving from believing without proof to believing because one hase experienced God first hand and so has first hand knowledge of God. He wrote in the about moving from mere faith to gnosis. By gnosis he meant first hand knowledge of God. The next step beyond gnosis was contemplation.

St. Augustine is purported to have said, :fides quaerens intellectum" or “Faith seeking understanding.”

I believe that faith is just the first step on the path to understanding dogma. Certainly in my life, every time I have stepped out in faith, accepting a belief I realy don’t understand and obeying, I have come to an understading - God has given me light and I understand.

Maybe we are talking about two different things. In my case, proof and understanding of difficult beliefs strengthens faith. The fact that the Church has been correct time after time makes the next difficult belief that much easier to accept.

I too hope I have made some sense. This might be a good topic for another thread.

-Tim-

 

[centurionguard]

It seems to me that ‘understanding’ weakens faith. In other words, seeing is NOT believing and as such, one is actually going backwards in the pursuit to understand dogma totally. As a cradle Catholic, I was taught to accept Catholic doctrine without question. ‘Re-formulating’ dogma to understand it is not conducive to increase and deepen faith, but rather it waters down and weakens the same. Does that make sense?
In so far as the dogma in question, it never occurred to me that ANYONE would be barred from heaven. I did feel ‘concern’ for non-Catholics and prayed for them but never felt that God would be unjust or unfair because that would be contrary to His nature.
What does concern me is that the wording of the Catechism seems to open the door to ‘re-formulating’ all the dogmas of the church. If it works with one, why not all of them?

**

It seems to me that ‘understanding’ weakens faith. In other words, seeing is NOT believing and as such, one is actually going backwards in the pursuit to understand dogma totally.

**

I would tend to agree. Many Dogma’s incorporate aspects of unfathomable supernatural mysteries like the Holy Trinity or Transubstantiation etc. Faith and Humility are required to believe without fully comprehending.

Ecclesiasticus Chapter 3 Verses 22-25
drbo.org/chapter/26003.htm

[21] For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. [22] Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. [23] For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. [24] In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. [25] For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

People learn, understand, and even believe in different ways. There is nothing wrong with explaining something several different ways to help people know what you are talking about.

As the example given earlier in the thread, both explanations said the same thing, just in differnt ways, from different views. It doesn’t weaken the faith or water it down to articulate a truth in more than one way.

 

[westboro]

People learn, understand, and even believe in different ways. There is nothing wrong with explaining something several different ways to help people know what you are talking about.

As the example given earlier in the thread, both explanations said the same thing, just in differnt ways, from different views. It doesn’t weaken the faith or water it down to articulate a truth in more than one way.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, however the point I am making is NOT about looking at truth from different angles. It is always good to look at truth from various points of view.
Rather, my concern is about the catechism containing potential error in its wording whereas the catechism should be dependably accurate in these matters.
As I stated previously and has been confirmed…dogmas cannot be changed…even by popes. The pope who wrote this catechism seems to have strayed from that teaching by using the word: ‘reformulated’.
This is the area that I am concerned about. There is nothing wrong with trying to understand the teachings of the church but if one has to ‘change’ dogmatic teaching, as the definition of reformulate means, then it doesn’t seem appropriate and can be even misleading or damaging to Catholics and non Catholics alike.

 

[MarkThompson]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, however the point I am making is NOT about looking at truth from different angles. It is always good to look at truth from various points of view.
Rather, my concern is about the catechism containing potential error in its wording whereas the catechism should be dependably accurate in these matters.
As I stated previously and has been confirmed…dogmas cannot be changed…even by popes. The pope who wrote this catechism seems to have strayed from that teaching by using the word: ‘reformulated’.
This is the area that I am concerned about. There is nothing wrong with trying to understand the teachings of the church but if one has to ‘change’ dogmatic teaching, as the definition of reformulate means, then it doesn’t seem appropriate and can be even misleading or damaging to Catholics and non Catholics alike.

Ah, maybe that is the problem: I don’t think you’re actually aware of the definition of “reformulate.” The OED:
reˈformulate, v.: To formulate anew.

formulate, v.: To reduce to a formula; to express in (or as in) a formula; to set forth in a definite and systematic statement.

formula: 1. a. A set form of words in which something is defined, stated, or declared, or which is prescribed by authority or custom to be used on some ceremonial occasion.
Thus, to reformulate something is, by definition, to change the form of words in which it is expressed – not to change the thing itself.

And while I think it is great that you were “taught to accept Catholic doctrine without question,” many people do ask questions, whether because they are interested in theology, or because they lack the unquestioning faith you have, or just because they are presently non-Catholics, only now beginning to explore our religion. Saying “Here is the dogmatic formulation; you must swallow it whole without asking any questions about it” may work for you, but I hope you can at least see why it might not work for, say, a Presbyterian who is starting to question the validity of Protestantism and wants to learn more about Catholicism.

 

[westboro]

Ah, maybe that is the problem: I don’t think you’re actually aware of the definition of “reformulate.” The OED:
reˈformulate, v.: To formulate anew.

formulate, v.: To reduce to a formula; to express in (or as in) a formula; to set forth in a definite and systematic statement.

formula: 1. a. A set form of words in which something is defined, stated, or declared, or which is prescribed by authority or custom to be used on some ceremonial occasion.
Thus, to reformulate something is, by definition, to change the form of words in which it is expressed – not to change the thing itself.

And while I think it is great that you were “taught to accept Catholic doctrine without question,” many people do ask questions, whether because they are interested in theology, or because they lack the unquestioning faith you have, or just because they are presently non-Catholics, only now beginning to explore our religion. Saying “Here is the dogmatic formulation; you must swallow it whole without asking any questions about it” may work for you, but I hope you can at least see why it might not work for, say, a Presbyterian who is starting to question the validity of Protestantism and wants to learn more about Catholicism.

Your (name removed by moderator)ut is very good and helpful. I appreciate the definition of the word reformulate as you have stated however, my contention that it should not be used in the catechism is still a great concern of mine. For example, if the pope had written an additional book or document in which he used the word reformulate, I would have no issue with it. My concern is that the word was used in the catechism, itself…which could shed some doubt on the validity of the dogmatic teaching and position of the church.
The theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar said it so perfectly in his thesis ‘In The Fullness of Faith’ - JESUS IS CATHOLIC. Simply put, it sums up the meaning of the dogma in the fewest words possible.
My further concern is the way that many priests see NO DIFFERENCE between Catholicism and other religions. This outlook is dangerous to say the least.
Whereas Ecumenism is a wonderful product of Vatican II, one should not be ‘watered down’ by involvement in Ecumenism! That, I am afraid is what has happened!

 

[Swiss_Guy]

No.

 

[Albino_Luciani]

“The words are not the dogma itself.” -Leon Bloy

Leon, you are in for the shock of your life:

DOGMA FROM THE FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL:

**If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema. **

Dogmas are solemn definitions, Leon and definitions are made up of words!!!

Don’t try and rope a dope the good people here.

 

[MarkThompson]

Your (name removed by moderator)ut is very good and helpful. I appreciate the definition of the word reformulate as you have stated however, my contention that it should not be used in the catechism is still a great concern of mine. For example, if the pope had written an additional book or document in which he used the word reformulate, I would have no issue with it. My concern is that the word was used in the catechism, itself…which could shed some doubt on the validity of the dogmatic teaching and position of the church.
The theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar said it so perfectly in his thesis ‘In The Fullness of Faith’ - JESUS IS CATHOLIC. Simply put, it sums up the meaning of the dogma in the fewest words possible.
My further concern is the way that many priests see NO DIFFERENCE between Catholicism and other religions. This outlook is dangerous to say the least.
Whereas Ecumenism is a wonderful product of Vatican II, one should not be ‘watered down’ by involvement in Ecumenism! That, I am afraid is what has happened!

The problem here is that you seem to want the Catechism to serve as a mere compendium of dogmatic definitions. Like I said before, get Denzinger if you want that. Such a book exists, but that’s not what the purpose of a catechism is. Nor does ecumenism have anything to do with it; I have no idea what you think the connection is.

Incidentally, I wanted to respond to your previous statement, “It seems to me that ‘understanding’ weakens faith.” Well, St. Anselm wrote a whole book on Faith Seeking Understanding (fidens quaerens intellectum). St. Augustine said, “Faith goes before; understanding follows after.” In the proper balance, the two are not in tension. Anyway, what you are indicting here is not the Catechism, but rather the existence of theology itself. If you crack open, say, the Summa Theologica, you will find that it is full, not of regurgitations of dogmatic statements, but of arguments, counterarguments, explanations, explorations, theories, and glosses.

“The words are not the dogma itself.” -Leon Bloy

Leon, you are in for the shock of your life:

DOGMA FROM THE FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL:

**If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema. **

Dogmas are solemn definitions, Leon and definitions are made up of words!!!

Don’t try and rope a dope the good people here.

You are understanding that statement incorrectly. The “sense” of something is its underlying meaning. This statement therefore tells us that a new, different meaning cannot be assigned to the words of an old dogma. What it meant in the past is what it means now; we can’t escape from it by saying, “Oh, we still hold to that dogmatic declaration, we just interpret it now to mean something innocuous and irrelevant.” What this statement definitely does not say is that it is forbidden to present the same thing – the same “sense” – in different language.

You claimed: “Dogmas are solemn definitions, Leon and definitions are made up of words!!!” No, not really. To put it in terms you might understand, a dogma is the substance of a definition; the words are its accidents.

 

[westboro]

The problem here is that you seem to want the Catechism to serve as a mere compendium of dogmatic definitions. Like I said before, get Denzinger if you want that. Such a book exists, but that’s not what the purpose of a catechism is. Nor does ecumenism have anything to do with it; I have no idea what you think the connection is.

Incidentally, I wanted to respond to your previous statement, “It seems to me that ‘understanding’ weakens faith.” Well, St. Anselm wrote a whole book on Faith Seeking Understanding (fidens quaerens intellectum). St. Augustine said, “Faith goes before; understanding follows after.” In the proper balance, the two are not in tension. Anyway, what you are indicting here is not the Catechism, but rather the existence of theology itself. If you crack open, say, the Summa Theologica, you will find that it is full, not of regurgitations of dogmatic statements, but of arguments, counterarguments, explanations, explorations, theories, and glosses.

You are understanding that statement incorrectly. The “sense” of something is its underlying meaning. This statement therefore tells us that a new, different meaning cannot be assigned to the words of an old dogma. What it meant in the past is what it means now; we can’t escape from it by saying, “Oh, we still hold to that dogmatic declaration, we just interpret it now to mean something innocuous and irrelevant.” What this statement definitely does not say is that it is forbidden to present the same thing – the same “sense” – in different language.

You claimed: “Dogmas are solemn definitions, Leon and definitions are made up of words!!!” No, not really. To put it in terms you might understand, a dogma is the substance of a definition; the words are its accidents.

Your counter statements make no sense and to argue with you is but a distraction in as much as you don’t seem to get the point of my issue with the catechism.
Recently, the church revisited the Roman Missal and rewrote many parts of it finding error in the translation. Who is to say that the church didn’t err by its choice of wording in the catechism. Dogmas are unchangeable. That fact is established. To reformulate ANY dogma (positively) is to change its very nature. The catechism should not use the tactic of reformulating to ‘water down’ any dogma to make it more palatable. That tactic should be used in other areas of discussion, that hold less teaching authority and more speculation for deeper understanding.
The church is suffering from the loss of 85% of its members as ‘inactive’. Perhaps this kind of error is the cause of it. Change dogma…change the church…change devotion.

 

[MarkThompson]

Your counter statements make no sense and to argue with you is but a distraction in as much as you don’t seem to get the point of my issue with the catechism.

Oh, did you want an actual discussion, or just a platform for your jeremiad? So far you haven’t expressed any issue you have with the Catechism, except to say that you disapprove of trying to understand things and that you are incapable of comprehending how finding different words to explain a dogma isn’t an attempt to alter the dogma. “To reformulate ANY dogma (positively) is to change its very nature” – um, no. But since I’m so dense, maybe you can walk me through it with a simple example. Use my example about the wedding reception (post#4), and show me how the different formulations “change the very nature” of the underlying concept that people who arrive late will not get any cake. That should be an easy task for you if it is indeed so obvious that reformulating something changes its very nature.

 

[Sirach2]

Westboro:

Recently, the church revisited the Roman Missal and rewrote many parts of it finding error in the translation. Who is to say that the church didn’t err by its choice of wording in the catechism. Dogmas are unchangeable.

You are mistaken that the second Roman Missal was in error. The Church “re-formulated” the missal to agree with the literal translation from latin. The old wording was NOT in error.

I’m sorry you do not accept Mark Thompson’s help, Westboro, for his explanation is clear to the rest of us, but you have a stumbling block that prefers to cling to your understanding of the literal word, which is akin to sola scripturists.

The Catechism’s 846 has added within it’s statement a footnote that helps the reader to understand the Mind of the Church. These footnotes are very much a part of the formulation. Have you read them? This passage and the following 847 refer to the scriptures Mark 16:16, John 3:5, and Lumen Gentium’s Chapter 14. There is nothing taught in 846 that contradicts the scriptures or LG in any way. Kindly read the footnotes. One of them I couldn’t research, since it references St. Cyprian, and I do not have access to that.

Be assured, the Church always backs up her teachings and does not pull novel theories from a vacuum, but always builds faithfully on those dogmas defined in earlier ages. It is really sad to see that you have so little faith and trust that you would imply there is error therein.

 

[Cristiano]

One thing that people do not seem to notice is that a lot of dogmas were originally formulated in a specific manner to address a specific and local problem of the time. Such formulations were used to formalize a teaching in order to address heresies or misbehaviors. I think that sometime we forget that the formulation had its own context. Changing the formulation of the same teaching to address a different context is not equivalent to changing the dogma.