Catholic Doctrines: Development versus Change

[Soldier_Of_God]

I have the view that appropriate doctrine development does not equate to a change of teaching. Doctrine development, in my view, occurs when Catholic dogmas are re-expressed using various approaches. This re-expression is intended to provide a clear and specific teaching in light of better understanding and to better communicate the baseline instruction within the prevailing cultural state. However, some individuals would construe that doctrinal development constitutes change and, therefore, in contradiction to the immutable truth of the Deposit of Faith. Ostensibly, this is often used as a pretext to undermine Catholic legitimacy.

In you view, at what point does doctrinal development become a substantive change in Church teachings?

 

[promethius]

In you view, at what point does doctrinal development become a substantive change in Church teachings?

When it contradicts rather than further defines.

We have an example, commonly used by sedevacantists, of the controversy of salvation outside of the church. The church has always taught that only Catholics will be saved, but recent development has instructed us that we cannot always judge who is or is not Catholic… that God can confer grace on whomever He pleases. We simply must trust in the faith, mercy, justice, and love of God.

It doesn’t contradict. It further informs on the same subject. Quite different than if we were to turn around and say that Mary was not assumed, or not born immaculate, or that the Real Presence was a hoax.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I agree with promethius and would just say loosely, if the Church were to say Dogma X is true and then Dogma X is Not true would constitute change and not development. And of course that would apply only to something that was actually defined.

 

[Trebor135]

I agree with promethius and would just say loosely, if the Church were to say Dogma X is true and then Dogma X is Not true would constitute change and not development. And of course that would apply only to something that was actually defined.

But

a) One must be Catholic to be saved.

and

b) One does not have to be Catholic to be saved.

are two propositions that seem impossible to reconcile.

Clarification on this question would be appreciated, especially given that this development or change opens the Catholic Church up to accusations of “yielding to the modern age” (in which ecumenism and tolerance are celebrated).

 

[promethius]

But

a) One must be Catholic to be saved.

and

-]
b) One does not have to be Catholic to be saved.
/-]
are two propositions that seem impossible to reconcile.

Clarification on this question would be appreciated, especially given that this development or change opens the Catholic Church up to accusations of “yielding to the modern age” (in which ecumenism and tolerance are celebrated).

There’s nothing to reconcile since the church has never taught proposition B. All church teaching has stated, since the inception of Christianity, that one must be catholic to be saved.

The confusion, I think, comes in understanding that when it comes to those to whom no VISIBLE Catechesis has been rendered such that the person had a REASONABLE chance to respond to Christ in the Church, then we cannot judge whether such a person was damnable or not, but rather entrust them to the mercy, love, and justice of God who MIGHT offer them sacramental (catholic) grace. Thus we are not always capable of judging, as regards the invincibly ignorant, who is absolutely NOT catholic.

 

[Della]

Getting back to the OP’s topic, development means mining all the truths and riches of a teaching, exploring how it is true and how it impacts us. For example, the general census of the Church was that Mary was conceived without sin but it was not declared a dogma but rather was left open for theologians to ponder and debate. When Bl. Don Scotus proposed that Mary’s election was based in the sacrifice of Christ and applied to her at the moment of her conception (I’m relating this from memory, so if I have the details wrong, please pardon me) his theory was proposed and prayed over and in God’s good time the IC was declared dogma.

I mention this not to debate the IC, (and please excuse/dismiss the poor way I am explaining all this) but to point out that the Church never changed this teaching. It wasn’t understood as we now understand it until the Holy Spirit allowed it. St. Louis Marie de Montfort proposed that the teachings about Mary were hidden until the time they were most needed in the Church and the world–as Christ was born “in the fullness of time”, as St. Paul tells us, and so was hidden from us until then, some things are meant to be reveal more fully when the time is right. We humans sometimes have the idea that God is bound to tell us everything all at once and at our convenience. We seem to forget that he is in charge and decides what/when is best for us as any good parent does.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Trebor,

The Catholic Church does not teach that those outside the Catholic Church can be saved BECAUSE they are not Catholic. Rather, she teaches that those outside the Catholic Church can be saved by ways known only to God depending on how well they adhere to the Catholic Truths of which they DO have knowledge (e.g., the Truths written in the hearts of ALL men…). The more Truths one possesses that are aligned to the Catholic Faith, the greater one’s responsibility is to adhere to those Truths. The Catholic has the greatest responsibility of all.

To be concise, your wording is a bit off. The Church does not teach that one must be Catholic to be saved (heck, even if you ARE a Catholic, you have the possibility of not being saved). More specifically, the Church teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation. This teaching has never changed. What has developed (as opposed to “changed”) is our understanding of the term “Church.” Does the term “Church” refer ONLY to those who are formally members of the Catholic Church, or does it refer to all who believe in the name of Christ? Does it also refer to those who, while not culpable for having knowledge of or belief in Christ, faithfully adhere to the Catholic Truths that God has written in the hearts of all men?

Remember also that the Church has existed from the beginning of Creation, even before its formal inception at Pentecost. All faithful Jews who never knew Christ belonged to the Church in the eternal perspective of God. Adam and Eve were the first members of the Church, but they were certainly not formal Catholics.

But aside from the concept of Church membership, formally or informally, there is another, constant sense in which we understand, and have always understood, the teaching “extra ecclesiam sulla nullus.” It is the notion that all salvation comes through the Church, and no other created body. It is the Church that Christ has appointed to be the vehicle of His offered salvation, and no other created institution has the capacity or capability to offer that salvation except the Church. In other words, any and all salvation, even to those who are formally not members of the Church, comes from the Cross of Christ THROUGH the Church, and nothing or no one else.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

But

a) One must be Catholic to be saved.

and

b) One does not have to be Catholic to be saved.

are two propositions that seem impossible to reconcile.

Clarification on this question would be appreciated, especially given that this development or change opens the Catholic Church up to accusations of “yielding to the modern age” (in which ecumenism and tolerance are celebrated).

 

[mardukm]

In you view, at what point does doctrinal development become a substantive change in Church teachings?

When it contradicts Sacred Tradition. A perfect example is how certain Catholics and members of SSPX interpret the decrees of Vatican 1. Their understanding of the papacy is no development, but is a novel change in the history of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[grannymh]

But

a) One must be Catholic to be saved.

and

b) One does not have to be Catholic to be saved.

are two propositions that seem impossible to reconcile.

Clarification on this question would be appreciated, especially given that this development or change opens the Catholic Church up to accusations of “yielding to the modern age” (in which ecumenism and tolerance are celebrated).

The reality is that there is only one Savior Who is Jesus Christ. Therefore, salvation for all comes through Him regardless if He is known by name or not known by name.

In order to be saved, one has to sincerely seek the truth of God and, when possible, seek the truth of the Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ.

Since Jesus Christ died for all people and since all people are called to share in God’s life, Catholic teaching is that the Holy Spirit offers to all people the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.

God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His Sacraments.

A simple clarification is –
One should never underestimate the power of God to touch an individual soul and one should never underestimate the power of an individual soul to respond to God’s love and mercy.

Please study paragraphs 1257-1261,* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[thistle]

But

a) One must be Catholic to be saved.

and

b) One does not have to be Catholic to be saved.

are two propositions that seem impossible to reconcile.

Clarification on this question would be appreciated, especially given that this development or change opens the Catholic Church up to accusations of “yielding to the modern age” (in which ecumenism and tolerance are celebrated).

Only a) is correct. b) is not a Church teaching.

Church teachings:

• Baptism is necesary for salvation (but does not ensure it - soul must be in a state of grace at death).
• No salvation outside the Catholic Church.

The issue is how is a person both baptised and Catholic?

• Sacramental Baptism as a Catholic.
• Baptism of Blood (a non-Catholic dying for the Catholic Faith).
• Baptism of Desire - Explict (e.g. a catechumen in the RCIA program)
• Baptism of Desire - Implicit (invincible ignorance, i.e. when someone through no fault of their own does not know Christ, His Gospel, or his Church but lives a life in accordance with the teachings of Christ in that ignorance. Such a person may (not will) be saved).

Not all Catholics get to Heaven but everyone in Heaven is Catholic.

 

[MarcoPolo]

But

a) One must be Catholic to be saved.

and

b) One does not have to be Catholic to be saved.

are two propositions that seem impossible to reconcile.

Everyone who is saved is indeed Catholic. Yet is possible that one can be informally united to the one Church. This teaching is actually quite antiquated, such as when Justin Martyr posited that Plato was a true Christian, although not formally, or when Augustine said that there are some who appear outside the Church who are within.

As everyone else in the thread correctly said, the Church has never taught proposition B. It is a matter of normative and extraordinary ways of being united to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

 

[grannymh]

Everyone who is saved is indeed Catholic. Yet is possible that one can be informally united to the one Church. This teaching is actually quite antiquated, such as when Justin Martyr posited that Plato was a true Christian, although not formally, or when Augustine said that there are some who appear outside the Church who are within.

As everyone else in the thread correctly said, the Church has never taught proposition B. It is a matter of normative and extraordinary ways of being united to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Sorry. But I did not say that the Catholic Church has never taught proposition B.

Please refer to post 9.

 

[Della]

C’mon people this isn’t fair to the OP. The topic of no salvation outside the Church has been discussed ad nauseum on CAF. I don’t know how many times I’ve quoted the CCC on this issue, but people still argue about it as if the Church had never said anything or clarified what it means. It has–in spades.

Getting back to the OP’s topic.Doctrines develop not change because the core belief is always the same. The only thing that changes is the depth of our understanding. The Church is a living being, not a monolithic institution. It learns more as time goes on, plumbing the depths of Christ’s revelation. If it didn’t it could rightly be accused of being too staid and stick in the mud, but it isn’t. It reacts to the times and informs the times by opening up afresh for our enlightenment the doctrines it has taught since 33 AD.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

C’mon people this isn’t fair to the OP. The topic of no salvation outside the Church has been discussed ad nauseum on CAF.

I appreciate the attempt to get us on track.

 

[grannymh]

C’mon people this isn’t fair to the OP. The topic of no salvation outside the Church has been discussed ad nauseum on CAF. I don’t know how many times I’ve quoted the CCC on this issue, but people still argue about it as if the Church had never said anything or clarified what it means. It has–in spades.

Getting back to the OP’s topic.Doctrines develop not change because the core belief is always the same. The only thing that changes is the depth of our understanding. The Church is a living being, not a monolithic institution. It learns more as time goes on, plumbing the depths of Christ’s revelation. If it didn’t it could rightly be accused of being too staid and stick in the mud, but it isn’t. It reacts to the times and informs the times by opening up afresh for our enlightenment the doctrines it has taught since 33 AD.

`

Here is the source
Christ Jesus -“Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation”
God has said everything in His Word
paragraph 65
There will be no further Revelation
paragraphs 66-67
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

 

[Lisa44]

…
In you view, at what point does doctrinal development become a substantive change in Church teachings?

The doctrine, or teachings of the church should be those espoused by Jesus (ie: in the bible). And then carried forth by his apostles.
If the church teachings contradict what is written in the bible then there is a problem.

The bible is written. There are no more prophets, and nothing is to be added to it.

When theologians try and elaborate on scripture and make doctrines that are not explicitly contained in the bible and then the church makes people beholden to doctrines developed by theologians then there is a problem.

The church splitting apart is the effect of such actions.

Examples of such are: papal infallability, immaculate conception of Mary, the trinity, the natures of Christ, doctrines on salvation, the rosary, Mary as mediatrix, cults of apparitions, …etc.

I take all of the above with a grain of salt.

And I know I’m going to be attacked now and people will tell me " BLA BLA BLA - YOU ARE NOT A CATHOLIC!"

Well, if the Catholic church existed from the beginning then I am a Catholic if I stick to what the church has taught always and everywhere.

now I’ve already addressed the criticisms to my post.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

The doctrine, or teachings of the church should be those espoused by Jesus (ie: in the bible). And then carried forth by his apostles.
If the church teachings contradict what is written in the bible then there is a problem.

The bible is written. There are no more prophets, and nothing is to be added to it.

I have a question then. Do you believe that all that was taught by the apostles is contained in the bible?

 

[Della]

The doctrine, or teachings of the church should be those espoused by Jesus (ie: in the bible). And then carried forth by his apostles.
If the church teachings contradict what is written in the bible then there is a problem.

The bible is written. There are no more prophets, and nothing is to be added to it.

When theologians try and elaborate on scripture and make doctrines that are not explicitly contained in the bible and then the church makes people beholden to doctrines developed by theologians then there is a problem.

The church splitting apart is the effect of such actions.

Examples of such are: papal infallability, immaculate conception of Mary, the trinity, the natures of Christ, doctrines on salvation, the rosary, Mary as mediatrix, cults of apparitions, …etc.

I take all of the above with a grain of salt.

And I know I’m going to be attacked now and people will tell me " BLA BLA BLA - YOU ARE NOT A CATHOLIC!"

Well, if the Catholic church existed from the beginning then I am a Catholic if I stick to what the church has taught always and everywhere.

now I’ve already addressed the criticisms to my post.

I’m not going to attack you. CAF exists to help both Catholics and non-Catholics understand the teachings of the Church, so here is my poor attempt to answer you.

The Bible is not the final word of God. It is a book containing the writing of many men down through many generations. Jesus himself is the final word of God and he never commanded any books be written of any kind. The NT is largely made up of accounts of his life and letters by the Apostles addressing problems within the Church at their time. It was never meant to be the end all and be all of doctrine. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to go and teach and make disciples. They did this through oral teaching and through written teaching. We have both, actually, because the Church Fathers recorded what the Apostles taught and the bishops heard them and passed them on to their successors.

Theologians don’t decide doctrine. You misunderstand their role in the Church. They only help clarify doctrine and look into it to find all its riches. It is the Magisterium of the Church, which is made up of all the bishops and the Holy Father who decide matters of faith and morals. No theologian ever made the Church accept anything he taught or speculated about.

And thirdly, the Church existed before the NT. Jesus didn’t found a book, he founded a Church and gave it the authority to teach and preach in his name. So, the Church has the authority to decide what the writers of the NT and OT meant. Theologians, once again, don’t decide that, they only study matters of faith and morals so they can advise the Magisterium but it is the Magisterium alone that decides the full meaning of any doctrine and it is the Holy Father who declares doctrines to be dogmas. I hope that helps.

 

[Lisa44]

I have a question then. Do you believe that all that was taught by the apostles is contained in the bible?

Is this a trick question?

 

[Lisa44]

I’m not going to attack you. CAF exists to help both Catholics and non-Catholics understand the teachings of the Church, so here is my poor attempt to answer you.

The Bible is not the final word of God. It is a book containing the writing of many men down through many generations. Jesus himself is the final word of God and he never commanded any books be written of any kind. The NT is largely made up of accounts of his life and letters by the Apostles addressing problems within the Church at their time. It was never meant to be the end all and be all of doctrine. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to go and teach and make disciples. They did this through oral teaching and through written teaching. We have both, actually, because the Church Fathers recorded what the Apostles taught and the bishops heard them and passed them on to their successors.

Theologians don’t decide doctrine. You misunderstand their role in the Church. They only help clarify doctrine and look into it to find all its riches. It is the Magisterium of the Church, which is made up of all the bishops and the Holy Father who decide matters of faith and morals. No theologian ever made the Church accept anything he taught or speculated about.

And thirdly, the Church existed before the NT. Jesus didn’t found a book, he founded a Church and gave it the authority to teach and preach in his name. So, the Church has the authority to decide what the writers of the NT and OT meant. Theologians, once again, don’t decide that, they only study matters of faith and morals so they can advise the Magisterium but it is the Magisterium alone that decides the full meaning of any doctrine and it is the Holy Father who declares doctrines to be dogmas. I hope that helps.

Thank you

The bible is the final word of God, I believe.
Not a Bishops word.

The Pope can say the opposite of what the bible says, and the bible is still the truth, not the Pope. Therefore, the bible is preeminent.