.What is the distinction between a dogma and a doctrine? I didn’t think the catechism distinguished between the two. I was taught in RCIA that there are small “t” traditions and big “T” traditions. Only small t tradition can change. If doctrine can change, then how much? Can one doctrine be deemed false that was taught as true for centuries? If that isn’t a rupture in the entire tradition of the church, I don’t know what else is. Give me a concrete example of a doctrine that can be changed.
From the same speech“You, therefore, go forth to the streets and go to the crossroads: all who you find, call out to them, no one is excluded,” he exhorted. “Wherever you are, never build walls or borders, but meeting squares and field hospitals.”
Don’t build walls! Unless you like the TLM, or Ember Days, or the like. Then we should totally build a special wall just for you and make sure you don’t attract anybody else to your weird practices.“it is useless to look for solutions in conservatism and fundamentalism, in the restoration of practices and outdated forms that aren’t even able to be culturally meaningful.”
No, however the understanding of that doctrine on the part of the faithful and the Church as a whole will never remain “static”. That doctrine ‘develops’ is a dogmatic teaching of the Magisterium.Can one doctrine be deemed false that was taught as true for centuries?.
We are continually advancing in our understanding of divine revelation. As the “centuries succeed one another, the church constantly moves forward” towards a purer and more accurate grasping of divine truth.This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.** For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.**
from the nature of the human mind, time is necessary for the full comprehension and perfection of great ideas; and that the highest and most wonderful truths, though {30} communicated to the world once for all by inspired teachers, could not be comprehended all at once by the recipients, but, as being received and transmitted by minds not inspired and through media which were human, have required only the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation…
If Christianity be an universal religion, suited not simply to one locality or period, but to all times and places, it cannot but vary in its relations and dealings towards the world around it, that is, it will develope. Principles require a very various application according as persons and circumstances vary, and must be thrown into new shapes according to the form of society which they are to influence. Hence all bodies of Christians, orthodox or not, develope the doctrines of Scripture…
Those who resist legitimate development of doctrine and those who seek to “rupture” it are both acting in opposition to the will of God.Accordingly, the common complaint of Protestants against the Church of Rome is, not simply that she has added to the primitive or the Scriptural doctrine, (for this they do themselves,) but that she contradicts it, and moreover imposes her additions as fundamental truths under sanction of an anathema. For themselves they deduce by quite as subtle a method, and act upon doctrines as implicit and on reasons as little analyzed in time past, as Catholic schoolmen. What prominence has the Royal Supremacy in the New {59} Testament, or the lawfulness of bearing arms, or the duty of public worship, or the substitution of the first day of the week for the seventh, or infant baptism, to say nothing of the fundamental principle that the Bible and the Bible only is the religion of Protestants? These doctrines and usages, true or not, which is not the question here, are surely not gained by the direct use and immediate application of Scripture, nor by a mere exercise of argument upon words and sentences placed before the eyes, but by the unconscious growth of ideas suggested by the letter and habitual to the mind…
Many dioceses, including my own, do operate soup kitchens or diners. Everyone is served, no questions asked, with the help of hundreds of volunteers. Is Pope Francis encouraging more services for the poor? That’s a good thing, and it need not come at the expense of sound doctrine.In Florence Pope Francis spoke to Italian bishops of his vision for the church. Then, in a soup kitchen, he showed them
twitter.com/CathVoicesITA/status/664107414673862656
Most of the time he is just saying do what Jesus told us to do. The Good News is really simple to understand, but often hard to follow.Many dioceses, including my own, do operate soup kitchens or diners. Everyone is served, no questions asked, with the help of hundreds of volunteers. Is Pope Francis encouraging more services for the poor? That’s a good thing, and it need not come at the expense of sound doctrine.
One thing for sure, the pope’s words often provide a rich field of discussion in which everyone tries to figure out what he really said.
Regarding the issue of the development of doctrine, Blessed John Henry Newman had seven tests according to the following, of which are described here: catholicworldreport.com/Item/3490/cardinal_newman_the_synod_and_the_kasper_proposal.aspxNo, however the understanding of that doctrine on the part of the faithful and the Church as a whole will never remain “static”. That doctrine ‘develops’ is a dogmatic teaching of the Magisterium.
Doctrines are not fossils. They are the living, breathing tradition derived from the Apostles which “advances” and “makes progress” in the life of the Church under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
Development is not the same as “rupture”. If you plant a seed and watch it grow over sixty years, the resulting oak tree will hardly resemble the original ‘seed’ that was planted, yet the seed that was planted sixty years ago would still have been ‘oak’ seed. The latter reality was “hidden” within the seed, it just took many years for it to become apparent and “develop”.
‘Rupture’ would be an oak seed becoming a pine tree. That is impossible.
Read Dei Verbum, from Vatican II:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
We are continually advancing in our understanding of divine revelation. As the “centuries succeed one another, the church constantly moves forward” towards a purer and more accurate grasping of divine truth.
Blessed John Henry Newman wrote an influential “classic” on the development of doctrine in the middle of the 19th century. He notes:
newmanreader.org/works/development/
Those who resist legitimate development of doctrine and those who seek to “rupture” it are both acting in opposition to the will of God.
The “conservatives and fundamentalists” that the Holy Father refers to in his speech are characteristic of the former. In trying to “fossilize” and “imprison” the truth under cultural forms tailored for former times that have lost their relevance and resist the “progressing” impulses of the Holy Spirit urging believers forward towards “the complete fulfilment” of the “words of God”, these individuals are holding back the march of the Gospel.
catholicworldreport.com/Item/3490/cardinal_newman_the_synod_and_the_kasper_proposal.aspxGiven this analysis, it is very doubtful that the doctrine on Communion for divorced and remarried persons proposed by Cardinal Walter Kasper can be considered authentic development of doctrine. Fr. Juan José Perez Soba has pointed out the doctrinal errors of Cardinal Kasper’s position on the marriage bond (Zenit.org, March 25, 2014). It is in no way the doctrinal development that St. Vincent of Lérins and Blessed Cardinal Newman envisioned. At the Synod Newman would instead argue how Sacred Scripture and Church Tradition uphold the indissolubility of the marriage bond.
Furthermore, Newman would caution against haste in questions of possible doctrinal development: “The theology of the Church is not random combination of various opinions, but a diligent, patient working out of one doctrine from many materials. The conduct of Popes, Councils, Fathers, betokens the slow, painful, anxious taking up of new truths into an existing body of belief” (366).
Yes, it does sound a bit contradictory. We are not exclude anyone, even those poor wretches mired in conservatism and fundamentalism. If they are as poor off as it sounds, they need to be welcomed with open arms even more! Again, it completely undermines the point being made to single out one spectrum of humanity.From the same speech
Don’t build walls! Unless you like the TLM, or Ember Days, or the like. Then we should totally build a special wall just for you and make sure you don’t attract anybody else to your weird practices.
Hence why I really don’t take the whole “no one is excluded” stuff very seriously. The people who push that, whether in the church, or politics, or on a college campus always seem to end up wanting to exclude certain people and opinions. Just what they accuse others of doing.
Hence why I don’t take Francis too seriously. He seems to want to reach out to everybody else at the expense of what Cardinal Dolan called the “new minority”. Now if he merely assumed they were faithful Catholics who are good to go and didn’t require much attention, that’s one thing. But the Pope seems to want to push them away. “Take your culturally unmeaningful practices and get out.”
Yes, and this is precisely who Pope Francis is referring to in this comment from the article:The “conservatives and fundamentalists” that the Holy Father refers to in his speech are characteristic of the former. In trying to “fossilize” and “imprison” the truth under cultural forms tailored for former times that have lost their relevance and resist the “progressing” impulses of the Holy Spirit urging believers forward towards “the complete fulfilment” of the “words of God”, these individuals are holding back the march of the Gospel.
I agree completely. Before I first visited this forum, and has been noted by others, I always thought the saying that “some Catholics are more Catholic than the Pope” was only a saying. It does make one wonder what at least a few new to Catholicism are learning when there is such certainty in their misunderstanding. It is disconcerting and freighting when a person cannot say something that is correct Church teaching without it being at once disputed in some righteous and even judgmental fashion that resists all reason. The Church has never accepted fundamentalism.I think the change has to come from each and every one of us. It’s disconcerting to find people on these threads who are more than ready and willing to damn one to hell. The level of legalism is frightening. I don’t think Jesus was a lawyer, ready to jail everyone, I think He brought mercy and understanding. Maybe it’s new Christians, I don’t know, all gung ho with the new information they’ve acquired and haven’t yet matured to add humility to the knowledge.
People here at CAF and outside writing articles and blogs are at different stages of spiritual development. All of us fail in one way or another. I know I do (most of the time in fact.) So we discuss, sometimes loudly, and we try to learn; that is what CAF is all about.I agree completely. Before I first visited this forum, and has been noted by others, I always thought the saying that “some Catholics are more Catholic than the Pope” was only a saying. It does make one wonder what at least a few new to Catholicism are learning when there is such certainty in their misunderstanding. It is disconcerting and freighting when a person cannot say something that is correct Church teaching without it being at once disputed in some righteous and even judgmental fashion that resists all reason. The Church has never accepted fundamentalism.
Doctrines can develop, but what is known to be true will never become false.Christian discipline is an open system but I did not think that doctrine could be changed…
It’s true that Jesus preached to the masses, and yet some of his preaching, such as the bread of life discourse, seems to have confused them greatly, even his closest disciples.Most of the time he is just saying do what Jesus told us to do. The Good News is really simple to understand, but often hard to follow.
Jesus preached to the masses, not to theologians and canon lawyers.
I agree completely. Before I first visited this forum, and has been noted by others, I always thought the saying that “some Catholics are more Catholic than the Pope” was only a saying. It does make one wonder what at least a few new to Catholicism are learning when there is such certainty in their misunderstanding. It is disconcerting and freighting when a person cannot say something that is correct Church teaching without it being at once disputed in some righteous and even judgmental fashion that resists all reason. The Church has never accepted fundamentalism.
It reminds me of Planet Fitness. They are a ‘judgement free zone’, unless you are a ‘lunk’, a term they use to describe bodybuilders, powerlifters, etc. You know, the ones who take fitness seriously and pass on their free bagels and pizza. They are too ‘intimidating’.From the same speech
Don’t build walls! Unless you like the TLM, or Ember Days, or the like. Then we should totally build a special wall just for you and make sure you don’t attract anybody else to your weird practices.
Hence why I really don’t take the whole “no one is excluded” stuff very seriously. The people who push that, whether in the church, or politics, or on a college campus always seem to end up wanting to exclude certain people and opinions. Just what they accuse others of doing.
Hence why I don’t take Francis too seriously. He seems to want to reach out to everybody else at the expense of what Cardinal Dolan called the “new minority”. Now if he merely assumed they were faithful Catholics who are good to go and didn’t require much attention, that’s one thing. But the Pope seems to want to push them away. “Take your culturally unmeaningful practices and get out.”
The Tridentine mass is outdated? I’m guessing that’s part of what he means by “obsolete conduct and forms”? And why are they outdated?Yes, and this is precisely who Pope Francis is referring to in this comment from the article:
“Before the problems of the Church it is not useful to search for solutions in conservatism or fundamentalism, in the restoration of obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being significant culturally…”
And I shouldn’t do likewise?People here at CAF and outside writing articles and blogs are at different stages of spiritual development. All of us fail in one way or another. I know I do (most of the time in fact.) So we discuss, sometimes loudly, and we try to learn; that is what CAF is all about.
If you want to, of course. But since it seemed to bother you, that’d be odd.And I shouldn’t do likewise?