Cardinal Wuerl: The Catholic Church is moving from legalism to mercy

[JimG]

It is the difference between seeing doctrine and teaching as static and fixed as opposed to revelation as a continuing process. Saint Pope John Paul II (as the article notes) and of course Pope Benedict XVI understood revelation in this way, and it would seem Pope Francis does as well. That this teaching has not been a focus is the source of great confusion, and I would say it is likely why much that has been said of late by Pope Francis and theologians such as Cardinal Casper has seemed incomprehensible to some.

I would be surprised if the Church formally adopts a doctrine of continuing revelation. How would it work? Development of doctrine makes sense; so does improved understanding of revelation. Continuing revelation is something else again.

 

[KSU]

Quote by LongingSoul

"This is where some confuse the adaptation of teaching to be era appropriate, with changing of doctrine.

“Some doctrines have been radically adapted like the aspects surrounding the historical Adam and Eve in the light of evolutin theory. Some doctrines only came to light fairly recently like the Marian doctrines. Some found these evolutions so hard to accept they left the faith thinking doctrine was suddenly being 'changed”.​

Sorry, LS, there has been no change in doctrine about Adam and Eve or Mary. What was or could be believed before is still or could be believed now, and even more fully because of development. It is not correct to say that some doctrine has been “radically adapted” for a new generation of Catholics.

Growth in understanding can never mean reversal of the Church’s understanding. As Ender said, doctrines can never change to the extent that they allow in the future what they disallow now. That statement is all that need be said. Here is a summation what the Holy Spirit has taught us, and no pope has ever said anything to the contrary:

CATHOLIC DICTIONARY

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE

Growth in the Church’s understanding of the truths of divine revelation. Also called dogmatic progress or dogmatic development, it is the gradual unfolding of the meaning of what God has revealed. Always presumed is that the substantial truth of a revealed mystery remains unchanged. What changes is the subjective grasp of the revealed truth.
The source of this progressive understanding is the prayerful reflection of the faithful, notably of the Church’s saints and mystics; the study and research by scholars and theologians; the practical experience of living the faith among the faithful; and the collective wisdom and teaching of the Church’s hierarchy under the Bishop of Rome.

Implicit in the development of doctrine is the will of God that the faithful not only assent to what He revealed but also grow in the depth, clarity, and certitude of their appropriation of divine faith.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33062

 

[Thomas_White]

I would be surprised if the Church formally adopts a doctrine of continuing revelation. How would it work? Development of doctrine makes sense; so does improved understanding of revelation. Continuing revelation is something else again.

The difficulty occurs when existing doctrine and Church teaching is confused with revealed truth. Simply stated, this is legalism.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

With all due respect, I think most have figured out how to receive communion. It’s constantly pushed as it is, with people stepping over one another in the process. What we really need as welcoming is spiritual nourishment IMO.

Exactly.

If the Catholic Church was doing what Cardinal Wuerl describes, it would be talking about showing the fruits of the indwelling Jesus, holiness, trusting in God on a bad day, etc. It would be creating time and space where we could help each other cultivate that.

God forbid that Catholics should have - the dirty R-word - relationships !!!

 

[KSU]

The difficulty occurs when existing doctrine and Church teaching is confused with revealed truth. Simply stated, this is legalism.

Could you give an example?

 

[Thomas_White]

Could you give an example?

I have provided a quotation from Dei Verbum as well as a link explaining its origin and the influence of the future Pope Benedict XVI. It is clear from the teaching that interpreting existing doctrine and teaching as the full understanding of revelation is incorrect. If you disagree with this dogmatic teaching, why not explain your own position?

 

[JimG]

The difficulty occurs when existing doctrine and Church teaching is confused with revealed truth. Simply stated, this is legalism.

Christ founded the Church. If he did not intend for it to teach revealed truth, what good is the Church? How can it be trusted? The interpretation of a phrase out of Dei Verbum the way you have interpreted it makes the Catechism and magisterial teaching a useless exercise, since it cannot be identified with revealed truth. What is the Church teaching then? Mere subjectivism?

 

[Brendan]

The difficulty occurs when existing doctrine and Church teaching is confused with revealed truth. Simply stated, this is legalism.

How does doctrine differ from revealed truth?

 

[Thomas_White]

Christ founded the Church. If he did not intend for it to teach revealed truth, what good is the Church? How can it be trusted? The interpretation of a phrase out of Dei Verbum the way you have interpreted it makes the Catechism and magisterial teaching a useless exercise, since it cannot be identified with revealed truth. What is the Church teaching then? Mere subjectivism?

No, of course not. No one has said the Church does not teach revealed truth. As I understand the teaching, it is that the understanding of Apostolic preaching advances in the temporal world of change and time.

I quoted verbatim what was relevant from Dei Verbum and did so quite intentionally. If there is a disagreement with this dogmatic teaching, then why not explain why this is so?

 

[Thomas_White]

How does doctrine differ from revealed truth?

See the link below for an explanation:

vitamutaturnontollitur.blogspot.com/2014/09/ratzinger-and-theology-of-revelation.html?view=classic

 

[Brendan]

See the link below for an explanation:

vitamutaturnontollitur.blogspot.com/2014/09/ratzinger-and-theology-of-revelation.html?view=classic

My question was not in regards to sources of revelation, but what constituted a ‘revealed truth’

I agree that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition are not sources of revelation, that is God Himself; but are the truths that they contained revealed to mankind?

Would we then include any truth that has been revealed to us, by God, through His Church. If not, would it be because it had not been revealed ( a contradiction to the premise) , or would it be not a truth, (again a contradiction, as God cannot lie)

 

[JimG]

No, of course not. No one has said the Church does not teach revealed truth. As I understand the teaching, it is that the understanding of Apostolic preaching advances in the temporal world of change and time.

I quoted verbatim what was relevant from Dei Verbum and did so quite intentionally. If there is a disagreement with the teaching, then why not explain why this is so?

In your earlier post you said that “the difficulty occurs when existing doctrine and Church teaching is confused with revealed truth. Simply stated, this is legalism.” It sounds to me that you are saying that Church doctrine is not revealed truth. But in the above post you say “no one has said the Church does not teach revealed truth.”

Good.

When truth is written down, it does not become legalism; otherwise the scriptures would be legalism. When truth is studied and explained in detail and clarified and written down as doctrine or magisterial teaching, that’s not legalism, if it were, every pope and council would be guilty of legalism. And any new council document would be legalism.

Yes, doctrine can develop. When it does, it is a development in doctrine, not an addition to divine revelation.

 

[Thomas_White]

In your earlier post you said that “the difficulty occurs when existing doctrine and Church teaching is confused with revealed truth. Simply stated, this is legalism.” It sounds to me that you are saying that Church doctrine is not revealed truth. But in the above post you say “no one has said the Church does not teach revealed truth.”

Good.e

When truth is written down, it does not become legalism; otherwise the scriptures would be legalism. When truth is studied and explained in detail and clarified and written down as doctrine or magisterial teaching, that’s not legalism, if it were, every pope and council would be guilty of legalism. And any new council document would be legalism.

Yes, doctrine can develop. When it does, it is a development in doctrine, not an addition to divine revelation.

Yes, doctrine itself as revealed truth does not change; its understanding can advance. Dei Verbum says what it says. It is a dogmatic constitution.

What I meant in my earlier comment was that if it is said that the understanding of Apostolic preaching cannot advance and an historical understanding of it is fixed and is forever what it was at a particular point in time, then this is incorrect. If it is thought that the understanding from the past is necessarily forever fixed, and if this understanding is based on doctrine or teaching from that era and this is what is used to support this position, then it is legalism. It is to confuse what was the understanding at a point in time in the temporal world of change with revealed truth itself (which requires man, to whom truth is revealed). I don’t see at all it would necessarily mean an understanding from the past is incorrect. The point is that it could be incorrect as understanding advances. At least this is the way I understand Dei Verbum.

 

[Brendan]

It is to confuse what was the understanding at a point in time in the temporal world of change with revealed truth itself (which requires man, to whom truth is revealed).

Of course, as then Fr Ratzinger noted. There cannot be revelation without one for whom the truth can be revealed.

The truth about contraception being an intrinsic evil ( always and under every circumstance against the law of God)

That is a revealed truth, and while we might understand further particular facets of that truth, the truth itself will not change. It will always, and under every circumstance, be an evil.

Given that, a certain conscience could never judge that it is a good and therefore could be used. Correct?

 

[Thomas_White]

My question was not in regards to sources of revelation, but what constituted a ‘revealed truth’

I agree that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition are not sources of revelation, that is God Himself; but are the truths that they contained revealed to mankind?

Would we then include any truth that has been revealed to us, by God, through His Church. If not, would it be because it had not been revealed ( a contradiction to the premise) , or would it be not a truth, (again a contradiction, as God cannot lie)

This concerns the teaching of a dogmatic constitution. It is a good question whether the revealed truth is in fact ‘revealed’ to mankind. I have my own understanding of it, but that is all. Is Church teaching ‘revealed’ to mankind in the sense that everyone understands it who hears or learns of it? I would doubt it. In that way, understanding can advance (become more clearly understood), and it would seem it would be true of mankind as well–in the way the entire world does not understand the teachings of Christ, or in the way a child learns. More of revealed truth is ‘revealed’ to understanding in time. It is this development of understanding that I see as a process and a continuing understanding of revelation.

I would think this includes any truth revealed by God to man through the Church, but what might have have been revealed to a saint at some time during the past two thousand years is impossible to say. But Dei Verbum teaches it is very much possible.

Would we then include any truth that has been revealed to us, by God, through His Church, but if not, would it be not a truth? This question makes no sense to me.

And with that, I will be honest and straightforward. My true sense is that rather than trying to understand the teaching you are trying to find something to seize on to dispute. And I don’t wish to play this game.

 

[Brendan]

This concerns the teaching of a dogmatic constitution. It is a good question whether the revealed truth is in fact ‘revealed’ to mankind.

It is part of the Sacred Tradition, the Deposit of Faith that was given to

I have my own understanding of it, but that is all. Is Church teaching ‘revealed’ to mankind in the sense that everyone understands it who hears or learns of it? I would doubt it

Sacred Scripture is the same, it must be interpreted by an infallible source. Would you claim that Scripture is not revealed truths?

I would think this includes any truth revealed by God to man through the Church, but what might have have been revealed to a saint at some time during the past two thousand years is impossible to say. But Dei Verbum teaches it is very much possible.

Where does Dei Verbum stated that what is known about a truth becomes false? If contraception is known to be intrinsically evil, can that truth become false, in that it is neither the evil is not in intrinsic, or that the evil is, in fact, a good?

And with that, I will be honest and straightforward. My true sense is that rather than trying to understand the teaching .

I understand the teaching, my premise is that you do not.

My proof of that premise is that you cannot take the teachings of Dei Verbum and actually apply it to a situation.

The question about contraction still remains, does an increase in understanding about a truth render the truth to be false. Can what is revealed, via the Deposit of Faith, become false? Can what is known to be intrinsically evil, become false, in that it is neither the evil is not in intrinsic, or that the evil is, in fact, a good?

It is a simple, yes or no question. I claim that the answer is ‘no’.

What is your answer?

 

[pnewton]

There seems to be much confusion about the difference between doctrine/discipline and confusion about the “development” of doctrine.

I do not doubt that some people may be confused about this. However, disagreement is not the same as confusion, two terms which themselves are often interchanged here for effect, when actual the tactic just begs the question. I have yet to see anyone, CA apologists, posters, or any bishop, quote authoritative church documents that state civilly divorced and remarried cannot receive communion is a doctrine of the Catholic Church. I do know that some of the bishops and theologians do not agree that it is, and some believe it is.

I am reminded of the “doctrine” of limbo which itself was a logical outcome of two separate doctrines, and was at one time thought to be doctrine by some, and not by others. Synthesizing two doctrines is tricky. We might be missing something. In this case, I think the key that is missing, that which seems always to be missing even in the CA article, is the distinction of whether it is objective grave sin makes us unworthy in God’s eyes to approach the altar; or whether it is the actual fact that we have sinned gravely. Our current system of annulments allows for what is viewed objectively one way, to change and be viewed objectively in another light. Yet we know that God judges the heart, not just objective facts.

FYI - I am not confuse about the two. I accept that which has been defined by the Church as doctrine, to be doctrine. That which is not, is not.

 

[sarah_j]

The Church is clear on the issue of divorced/ remarried and the reception of Communion. Popes JP II and Benedict, as well as the Congregation for the
Doc. of the Faith, have spoken to this issue.

If this doctrine is allowed to be interpreted as merely a “discipline”
I dread to think what other doctrines will also fall by the wayside.

In “Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced-and-Remarried Members of the Faithful” the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a letter to the world’s bishops on October 14, 1994 said,

1. The mistaken conviction of a divorced-and-remarried person that he may receive holy communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions, to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissible. Marriage, in fact, both because it is the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality. [/library/curia/cdfdivor.txt]

By this document the Holy See affirmed the continuous theology and discipline of the Catholic Church that those who are divorced and remarried without a Decree of Nullity for the first marriage (whether that marriage was made within or outside the Catholic Church) are in an objectively adulterous union that prevents them from honestly repenting, receiving absolution for their their sins, and receiving Holy Communion. Until the marital irregularity is resolved by a Marriage Tribunal, or other procedures which apply to marriages of the non-baptized, they may not approach Penance or Holy Communion. As Pope John Paul II pointed out in Reconciliation and Penance, the Church desires such couples to participate in the Church’s life to the extent possible (and this participation in Mass, Eucharistic adoration, devotions and so on is a great spiritual help to them), as they work toward full sacramental participation.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_of_divorced_and_remarr.htm

 

[Ender]

The difficulty occurs when existing doctrine and Church teaching is confused with revealed truth. Simply stated, this is legalism.

Actually, I think it is basic to what the church claims about herself.*The knowledge which the church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. *(Fides et Ratio #7)

The Church gratefully accepts and lovingly preserves the entire deposit of Revelation, treating it with religious respect and fulfilling her mission of authentically interpreting God’s law in the light of the Gospel. (Veritatis Splendor #45)

…the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. (Dei Verbum #10)
To reject these claims is to reject an essential truth of Catholicism. If you don’t believe these claims then what is the sense of believing anything the church says?

Ender

 

[Ender]

I have provided a quotation from Dei Verbum as well as a link explaining its origin and the influence of the future Pope Benedict XVI. It is clear from the teaching that interpreting existing doctrine and teaching as the full understanding of revelation is incorrect. If you disagree with this dogmatic teaching, why not explain your own position?

You are mixing two different issues. No one has claimed that a full understanding of every revelation has been reached; everyone expects and allows for the expansion of doctrine. What is rejected is the idea that doctrines can change to the extent they can be reversed, or that what the church doctrinally proclaims can be denied if one fervently disagrees with it. Ratzinger was discussing the refinement of doctrine, not its reversal.

Ender