Not quite true.all dogmas have a warning attatched to them against the rejection of them. The canons of the councils are the source of dogmas. The only two exceptions are the immaculate conception and the assumption, which were proclaimed in encyclicals, but they still maintain the warning against rejecting them. If you can’t show me the canon then it is a false claim that it is a dogma. It is that simple. It doesn’t take a theological argument to determine whether it is a dogma or not.
Then the question begs itselfThere is not one Synod Father, whether conservative or “liberal” (for want of more accurate and holy terms) on the issue of communion for the divorced and remarried, who does not believe in development of doctrine.
…
There is no problem with the organic nature of Tradition. Human beings accept revelation in a living manner. No one disputes that.When a particular group within the Church wishes to see a rather substantial change to what has been constant teaching, one has to be wary when the development of doctrine begins to be invoked. That does not seem particularly organic. And an overemphasis on development of doctrine begins to make ordinary Catholics think that since nothing is fixed, everything is permitted. It is a danger.
It just seems a little too much when development of doctrine is almost immediately raised in conjunction with a desired change–before the development occurs.There is no problem with the organic nature of Tradition. Human beings accept revelation in a living manner. No one disputes that.
The problem is constant straw men.
It’s called agenda posting.
Perhaps the question of capital punishment would provide a good example. There is the Fifth Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Kill. But how is this to be understood when it is known capital punishment was permitted? (There was also the concept of just war.) As late as the Council of Trent, it was affirmed that capital punishment was permitted when it was justified, or words to that effect. So, when was it justified? JPII said that in an advanced society such as the U.S. it was now virtually never justified. Pope Benedict XVI also questioned CP, and I have read articles where he stated he wished to seen it end. When Pope Francis addressed the U.S. Congress this year, he stated that capital punishment should be abolished.When a particular group within the Church wishes to see a rather substantial change to what has been constant teaching, one has to be wary when the development of doctrine begins to be invoked. That does not seem particularly organic. And an overemphasis on development of doctrine begins to make ordinary Catholics think that since nothing is fixed, everything is permitted. It is a danger.
And indeed, as far as I know, it does not change the doctrine. Capital punishment is still permitted to the state. Pope Francis would like to see it end. So would I. But it is not prohibited. The reasoning given for the change is that modern states now have the means to protect themselves without recourse to capital punishment. But often, they simply do not have the means that are presumed.Perhaps the question of capital punishment would provide a good example. There is the Fifth Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Kill. But how is this to be understood when it is known capital punishment was permitted? (There was also the concept of just war.) As late as the Council of Trent, it was affirmed that capital punishment was permitted when it was justified, or words to that effect. So, when was it justified? JPII said that in an advanced society such as the U.S. it was now virtually never justified. Pope Benedict XVI also questioned CP, and I have read articles where he stated he wished to seen it end. When Pope Francis addressed the U.S. Congress this year, he stated that capital punishment should be abolished.
This of course concerns the evolving social conditions in which capital punishment was justified. However, the question has evolved to where the pope has now said that what was once permitted for many centuries should be eliminated. This is how the understanding of a teaching can advance. It is only an example, but nevertheless there are those who will argue it cannot represent a change.
I know. It was only meant as an example to illustrate how change can occur over time. Don’t wish to discuss CP as such.And indeed, as far as I know, it does not change the doctrine. Capital punishment is still permitted to the state. Pope Francis would like to see it end. So would I. But it is not prohibited. The reasoning given for the change is that modern states now have the means to protect themselves without recourse to capital punishment. But often, they simply do not have the means that are presumed.
I don’t find what you are saying complicated at all, Fran. Rules should not be at the front end of evangelization. We need rules, or God would not have given them to us, but Jesus said it best “If you love me, you will keep my commandments”. The relationship needs to come first. We need to “behold” Him, and know Him as a person, otherwise following rules is just, as you say, “external”. I think this is the biggest reason why Catholics leave the Church today. They crave a relationship, a meaningful and powerful experience with God. We have whole pews full of Catholics who are sacramentalized, but not evangelized. They go through the motions, but have not encountered Christ.This cultural aspect of the church (ie processions, honoring patron saints, etc) is what the Pope is talking about. These are EXTERNAL acts and he wants more of an INTERNAL christianity. He’s calling it Ecce Homo. He actually used those words down in Florence yesterday. Here the man. Or Here is man.
He said, literally, that we have to get away from following rules and come to know the Man of Christ. I can’t remember if he said the “man”, but he meant to come to know Christ.
Sometimes when this is said on these threads, some get upset. I hope what I’ve said could be confirmed.
Some may like it, and some may not, but some change is coming our way. If one is unhappy about it, they should ask themselves why they’re unhappy.
Very complicated.
Fran
I never said church disciplines are silly. i wish you would read carefully what I say.Code:I really have a difficult time exchanging ideas with you.
You are speaking here about a church discipline of fasting before communion. Perhaps i misunderstood what you have said? To me it comes across that you think the discipline is “silly” and “crazy”. This might not be so disconcerting if it were the average uneducated Catholic in the pew, but from someone who has served as a catechist for many years, it is alarming.Yes. It gets very silly. I think we need to get beyond all this stuff. When I was a little girl (I’m still a little girl!) I was taught not to eat or drink anything as of midnight when I was to receive communion. Now it’s an hour before. What has changed? God changed His mind? And why even an hour? It takes the body 4 hrs to digest.** It’s crazy**. Man made legalism distances one from God. Too much emphasis on what I can and cannot DO, and not enough on He who created us and gave us the food we cannot eat before communion!
Fran
When people claim to be well educated Catholics and make disparaging statements about the catechism, the disciplines of the Church, and deny the infallible teachings of the Church it is even more problematic. You are right, people who are reading the threads may come away with the wrong idea - like it is ok to call yourself Catholic even though you reject what the Church teaches.I’m sorry that people are reading along and who knows what they must think of me based on your replies to me which I really don’t care to answer for the above stated reason.
Certainly there is a time and a place to stop trying. It seems like you just don’t want to be responsible for what you have put into the post. Certainly no one can make you take responsibility for what you have written here, but you also cannot expect it will not be confronted. It is damaging to the faith to have it misrepresented in a public forum.When two people misunderstand each other (see, I’m taking the blame - maybe) it’s of no use to continue!
Fran
I hope so, but if not, it is likely because you do not realize what you are teaching is an error. I am confident in the goodness of your heart and intentions.This is exactly what makes me question all these rules. Now Guanophore is going to get upset with me because I was a catechist till last year, let me assure everyone that I taught what the church teaches and believes to be true - not my personal opinion.Code:I grew up in pre Vat II. But I'm still only 28.
These are Church disciplines and sacramental practices. They change over time because they are not part of the immutable doctrine of the faith. There may need to be changes, but that does not make what happened previously “silly” or “crazy”.Do you remember that we couldn’t eat meat on Friday’s? Now we could.
Do you remember that we had to tell the priest how many times we committed each sin?
(gosh, I used to make a list!)
Do you remember that we couldn’t eat anything after 10 pm or midnight the evening before receiving communion? Now it’s an hour before.
Why have any tme limit? To teach honor and respect for the host. To remind us what is is we’re doing - Who we’re going to meet. To remind us of the importance of that meeting. Can’t I do this sans the 1 hour rule?? Am I in such need of a rule? Didn’t Paul say we need to get away from milk and get to the meat? Can I not be a mature catholic?
I think this is what he’s getting at.
Yes! People need to love Him first, then we can talk about commandments.Code:These are rules Thomas White. All this stuff that makes us think more of The Rule than of Jesus. I didn't even meet Jesus till I was well into my 20's. And yet I followed all the rules. I think this is what the Pope is talking about.
I agree that it is difficult to watch every word you say. I am eager for you to correct me where I have misunderstood your posts. It does not help me to understand you better if you just deny what you wrote. Maybe it did not come across right for me, and I can work on that, but if you are not willing to stand behind what you have written, maybe it would be better not to write it?Yes. And also, many take his statements to mean whatever they wish them to mean. Difficult to watch every word you say. He’s not saying to do away with church doctrine - which is different, IMO.
The thread opened up to this reply.I don’t find what you are saying complicated at all, Fran. Rules should not be at the front end of evangelization. We need rules, or God would not have given them to us, but Jesus said it best “If you love me, you will keep my commandments”. The relationship needs to come first. We need to “behold” Him, and know Him as a person, otherwise following rules is just, as you say, “external”. I think this is the biggest reason why Catholics leave the Church today. They crave a relationship, a meaningful and powerful experience with God. We have whole pews full of Catholics who are sacramentalized, but not evangelized. They go through the motions, but have not encountered Christ.
Looks like we’re in the same time zone (almost) and I was tired last night and am sorry I didn’t reply better to the above. This thread is too far gone but I would like to say this:Church teachings are not man-made rules, they represent revealed truth and authentic interpretation of Scripture. The Church is the bride of Christ, created by Him. The Church is not a man-made institution and the Church’s teaching authority does not come from man, but from Christ. And yes, obedience is important.
Or should we become like Protestants with each man making his own interpretation of the Gospel? Each man his own magisterium? Just by a Bible, read it and off you go?
And as for the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ in the UK? This would include guitars, no mention of Mary, no Rosary, no encouragement of Eucharistic Adoration, no Benediction, definitely no incense, a celebration of the community as a focus for the Mass, holy water fonts left dry, no Latin prayers ever in Mass, no Benedictine chanting, no pipe organ etc., but a real eagerness to do anything that involves working with Protestant clergy.
Now some of those things are more important than others, but the things that really hurt about this are the downplaying of the sacrificial character of the Mass, the disregard for Eucharistic adoration, and the ignoring of our Blessed Mother Mary. It really is enough to make you cry sometimes. That is the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ in the UK. And they wonder why congregations are shrinking with younger Catholics preferring more traditional Masses.
Thomas White is correct in his understanding of what Pope Francis is trying to get across.What I pick up from the address is that the Pope is pitting against each other aspects of Catholicism that in fact are meant to work hand-in-hand together:
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
Why do traditional-minded Catholics opt for ‘obsolete conduct and forms’? (what, by the way, is meant by ‘obsolete conduct’?) Not because they are nostalgic for the 50’s - most of them weren’t born then - but because the obsolete forms, eg the TLM, are unambiguously Catholic in their ethos. The TLM is not about the Latin, it’s about a reverent, supernaturally Christ-centred liturgy that is incapable of being bent into any other shape. In other words, it is dependable. The New Mass, to take a non-obsolete example, can be celebrated reverently, but it is also elastic enough to be celebrated in other ways. What traditional-minded Catholics are looking for is something that should have been there already in the ‘regular’ liturgy.
Christian doctrine is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives – but is alive, knows being unsettled, enlivened
Christian doctrine by the fact it is doctrine (as opposed to non-defined and non-dogmatic opinions) is precisely ‘incapable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives’. Not every theological question has been settled by the Church, e.g. the fate of babies who die before baptism, but the questions that matter, that are capable of making us ‘unsettled’, have been resolved, long ago.
Speaking to Gnosticism, which widely held that people should shun the material world in favor of the spiritual realm, Francis identified such thinking today with that which "brings us to trust in logical and clear reasoning … which however loses the tenderness of the flesh of the brother
If there is any time in history when we need to use logical and clear reasoning it is now. Logical and clear reasoning on matters of the Faith is not in opposition with the tenderness of the flesh of the brother, since every part of our Faith exhorts us to love our neighbour as ourselves.
Speaking to Pelagianism, which holds that humans can achieve salvation on their own without divine help, the pontiff said that in the modern day it "brings us to have trust in structures, in organizations, in perfect plans, however abstract."
“Often it brings us to assume a style of control, of hardness, of normalcy,” said Francis.
What is meant by ‘structures’ and ‘organisations’? The Church is a structure and an organisation, a divinely instituted hierarchy whose purpose is to govern, instruct and sanctify. A Catholic is meant to trust the structure as a child trusts his mother. Trusting the Church does not mean assuming a ‘style of control, of hardness, of normalcy’, quite the opposite. The great reforming saints utterly trusted the structure and organisation of the Church.
Thanks for the link, Clem. Anythning that can help one with the catechism is great!To be precise, there is no such thing as “ongoing” revelation.
God’s full and final revelation is in the person of Jesus Christ. (God is unchanging, Jesus is Son of God, SPBT etc…, revelation is not subject to human experience. Revelation is, like God is, and we receive and understand it.)
There is a really cool feature in the catechism where you can look up words that you would like more information on.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/index/d.htm
Sorry to disagree Clem.The CCC speaks for itself, It doesn’t need your interpretation or your straw man.
Hello VouthonBlessed John Henry Newman’s point on the ‘basic idea’ should be borne in mind:
"It was said, then, that a true development retains the essential idea of the subject from which it has proceeded, and a corruption loses it" (241)
The ‘basic idea’ always holds but the understanding can still appear to be radically different, as he notes:
The difference in understanding from one age to another can be as stark as that between a caterpillar and butterfly. The ‘basic idea’ of both is the same, the capacity to develop into a beautiful butterfly is in-built to the caterpillar, but the full-grown butterfly looks very different.The butterfly looks different from the grub, but it is the same thing properly developed.
I agree.Dei Verbum is the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation. I suggested you read Dei Verbum yourself. I honestly don’t know what you are trying to say and would prefer to let it go with that.