Catholicism can and must change, Francis forcefully tells Italian church gathering

[Thomas_White]

However doctrine cannot be developed in such a way that it contradicts previous revelation of doctrine. That would be saying that previous revelation was wrong, which is impossible. Truth cannot contradict Truth. Doctrine does not change, doctrine develops.

And pastoral practice is doctrine lived out in reality. Pastoral practice cannot be in contradiction to doctrine.

The understanding of doctrine continuously develops and that it does is dogma. This understanding can very well contradict the understanding of a bygone era.

 

[clem456]

Yeah. It’s always words. I think before people try to communicate they should get the same dictionary and study it and not speak until…

Brendan: Disciplines
Fran: Rules

 So we agree!

Dogma: Cannot be changed
Doctrine: Ongoing revelation is possible and change can occur.

Okay…

Fran

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 will be no further Revelation
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

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

 

[Brendan_64]

The understanding of doctrine continuously develops and that it does is dogma. This understanding can very well contradict the understanding of a bygone era.

Not so. The understanding of doctrine is through understanding of divine revelation, not man’s interpretation of doctrine based on the world around him. Truth is not relative, and truth cannot contradict truth. Truth does not change according to worldly circumstances.

 

[clem456]

The understanding of doctrine continuously develops and that it does is dogma. This understanding can very well ** contradict** the understanding of a bygone era.

Here’s what the Church actually teaches, if anyone is interested. Tradition is organic, it grows from the same and eternal source which is it’s seed.

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.”
…
Growth in understanding the faith

94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

• “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”;57 it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth”.58

• “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”,59 the sacred Scriptures "grow with the one who reads them."60

• “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.61

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."62

 

[Thomas_White]

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

"Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the centuries" (CCC, 66). [emphasis added]

This is what you provided by the quote, and though it is plain and clear it is indeed what is in dispute: “it remains for Christain faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the centuries”.

It means it is an error to assume that all there is to know about revelation was understood during a prior period or is understood even today.

 

[frangiuliano115]

However doctrine cannot be developed in such a way that it contradicts previous revelation of doctrine. That would be saying that previous revelation was wrong, which is impossible. Truth cannot contradict Truth. Doctrine does not change, doctrine develops.

And pastoral practice is doctrine lived out in reality. Pastoral practice cannot be in contradiction to doctrine.

Hmmmm. Let’s see what happens soon…

 

[clem456]

"Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the centuries" (CCC, 66). [emphasis added]

This is what you provided by the quote, and though it is plain and clear it is indeed what is in dispute: “it remains for Christain faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the centuries”.

It means it is an error to assume that all there is to know about revelation was understood during a prior period or is understood even today.

The CCC speaks for itself, It doesn’t need your interpretation or your straw man.

 

[Vouthon]

Blessed 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:

However, as the last instances suggest to us,** this unity of type, characteristic as it is of faithful developments, must not be pressed to the extent of denying all variation, nay, considerable alteration of proportion and relation, as time goes on, in the parts or aspects of an idea. Great changes in outward appearance and internal harmony occur in the instance of the animal creation itself. The fledged bird differs much from its rudimental form in the egg. The butterfly is the development, but not in any sense the image, of the grub**. The whale claims a place among mammalia, though we might fancy that, as in the child’s game of catscradle, some strange introsusception had been permitted, to make it so like, yet so contrary, to {174} the animals with which it is itself classed…

Nay, one cause of corruption in religion is the refusal to follow the course of doctrine as it moves on, and an obstinacy in the notions of the past. Certainly: as we see conspicuously in the history of the chosen race. The Samaritans who refused to add the Prophets to the Law, and the Sadducees who denied a truth which was covertly taught in the Book of Exodus, were in appearance only faithful adherents to the primitive doctrine. Our Lord found His people precisians in their obedience to the letter; He condemned them for not being led on to its spirit, that is, to its developments. The Gospel is the development of the Law; yet what difference seems wider than that which separates the unbending rule of Moses from the “grace and truth” which “came by Jesus Christ?”

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.

 

[Vouthon]

As one Catholic commentator on Newman notes:

thepersonalistproject.org/comments/what_would_newman_say_about_the_synod

I will say a few things about Newman’s distinction between developments and corruptions of doctrine, but the thrust of what follows is a critique of the conservative critics of Pope Francis. I draw heavily on Newman to formulate this critique, but I do not pretend speak for Newman. Rather, I turn to him for help and insight in clarifying and articulating my own thoughts.

If, then, some of the suggestions made during the Synod (Freda does not give specifics) are radical departures from the tradition, Newman would surely call them corruptions instead of developments. The idea of doctrinal development is not only that doctrine changes over time, but that it changes “in order to remain the same.” But are these suggestions radical breaks? Would they alter rather than develop the faith? That is the important question. Unfortunately Newman can’t help here, since he has written next to nothing about the theology of marriage and family. He does, however, make a few points about the development of doctrine that we should keep in mind while we’re thinking about it.

**Looks can be deceiving

First: what looks at first like a break with the past, may really be a genuine development of it. The Christian Faith, like any “living idea,” can remain essentially the same, while undergoing major, and even shocking changes in expression, practice and appearance**. In his Essay on Development Newman draws an analogy with the animal world:

…unity of type, characteristic as it is of faithful developments, must not be pressed to the extent of denying all variation, nay, considerable alteration of proportion and relation, as time goes on, in the parts or aspects of an idea. Great changes in outward appearance and internal harmony occur in the instance of the animal creation itself. The fledged bird differs much from its rudimental form in the egg. The butterfly is the development, but not in any sense the image, of the grub
​

To illustrate the point further, let’s recall the Church’s position on religious liberty as a relatively recent and well-known example. An old article by an old friend describes the striking contrast between the Church’s pre- and post-Vatican II positions:

How are we to make sense of the apparent contradiction, then, when Vatican II declares that “Religious communities have the further right not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word…to deny man the free exercise of religion…is to do an injustice to the human person and to the very order established by God for men.”?

The contradiction is only apparent of course. But it looked real enough back then to cause considerable difficulties, even crises of faith, for many traditional Catholics.

Looks can be deceiving (reversed)

Second: The reverse is also true. An idea or practice may look very similar to what came before, while being in fact a radical departure. This time Newman uses a political illustration:

…real perversions and corruptions are often not so unlike externally to the doctrine from which they come, as are changes which are consistent with it and true developments. When Rome changed from a Republic to an Empire, it was a real alteration of polity, or what may be called a corruption; yet in appearance the change was small.

Newman then adds a point I wish some conservative Catholic critics of the Synod and of Pope Francis would take to heart, namely that

…one cause of corruption in religion is the refusal to follow the course of doctrine as it moves on, and an obstinacy in the notions of the past.

False conservatism

**In one of his Historical Sketches, Newman describes a false conservatism by which religiously serious persons are often tempted. It consists in being overly-attached “to the ecclesiastical establishment, as such”, including “to traditional lines of policy, precedent, and discipline,—to rules and customs of long standing.” The great popes, however, Newman says, “have never been slow to venture out upon a new line, when it was necessary”

They have have never found any difficulty, when the proper moment came, of following out a new and daring line of policy (as their astonished foes have called it), of leaving the old world to shift for itself and to disappear from the scene in its due season, and of fastening on and establishing themselves in the new.**

Naturally “when the proper moment came” is a key line in that paragraph. There are other moments in which a great pope will hold fast and stay the course. In what sort of a moment do we live now? I’m grateful I do not have to lead the Church, and that nothing very important rides on my sense of the situation. But to me it seems obvious that the world around us, especially in the area of marriage and family, has radically changed in recent decades, and that we as Catholics urgently need to find better footing on which to stand and from which to act. I am grateful, therefore, to Pope Francis, for calling the Synod on Marriage and the Family, and urging the participants to speak honestly and from their own experience and perspective. I am glad that controversial opinions are openly raised and discussed, even those that will ultimately be rejected as incompatible with the Faith. I am looking forward to the outcome with faith and confidence.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

The understanding of doctrine continuously develops and that it does is dogma. This understanding can very well contradict the understanding of a bygone era.

Can it contradict the essence of a previous doctrine? If so, then the Magisterium has no right to bind our consciences to believe a doctrine to be true when fifty years later, it can be false. That would mean a Catholic of 200 years ago could conceivably be considered heretical now. Is doctrine a wax nose the Magisterium can twist whenever the the intellectual climate of the times deems it unpopular? Just as Vouthon wrote, just as an acorn cannot develop into a pine tree, so a doctrine cannot develop into something that contradicts itself. Changing the essence of a doctrine is changing the doctrine itself and would constitute a rupture within the Church.

 

[Vouthon]

Can it contradict the essence of a previous doctrine? If so, then the Magisterium has no right to bind our consciences to believe a doctrine to be true when fifty years later, it can be false. That would mean a Catholic of 200 years ago could conceivably be considered heretical now. Is doctrine a wax nose the Magisterium can twist whenever the the intellectual climate of the times deems it unpopular? Just as Vouthon wrote, just as an acorn cannot develop into a pine tree, so a doctrine cannot develop into something that contradicts itself. Changing the essence of a doctrine is changing the doctrine itself and would constitute a rupture within the Church.

Agreed, the '“essential idea” or type cannot change.

Still, it can look very different from what came before as evidenced by Newman’s butterfly analogy, just as a corruption can look superficially the same while changing the essence. It is a difficult and fine line which is why we must trust the Magisterium and sensus fidei of the faithful to properly discern a “development” from a “corruption”.

I would opine that the understanding of a doctrine could “conflict”, but the essence of it cannot, it can simply be “developed” and brought into sharper relief with the passage of time as our collective ecclesial understanding advances towards fullness in Christ.

Because we “see through a glass darkly” our grasping of the revealed truth is not total. As a result, later developments can appear to present new ways of approaching the doctrine, as different as a butterfly appears to the under-developed grub, which could give us cause for concern when in fact the essence is the same - the later development was implicit in the earlier understanding just as the butterfly was in the grub. The temptation to cling to the visual differences between the ‘grub’ and the ‘butterfly’, rather than perceiving them to be the same species fully grown, needs to be resisted.

Equally, we need to be on the look out for corruptions which Newman tells us - as if to complicate matters - can sometimes seem very close to true doctrine but diverge greatly from it in essence, which he explains using the analogy of the shift from Roman Republic to Empire. The Empire was a complete corruption of Republican ideals yet “superficially” it looked very similar: Caesar Augustus wore no crown, he called himself first citizen rather than monarch and even claimed to have restored the Republic after the Civil Wars. In fact Rome had lost its liberty and become a dictatorship, the “essence” had been surrendered completely. The Senate was a rubber-stamp body.

 

[Thomas_White]

Can it contradict the essence of a previous doctrine? If so, then the Magisterium has no right to bind our consciences to believe a doctrine to be true when fifty years later, it can be false. That would mean a Catholic of 200 years ago could conceivably be considered heretical now. Is doctrine a wax nose the Magisterium can twist whenever the the intellectual climate of the times deems it unpopular? Just as Vouthon wrote, just as an acorn cannot develop into a pine tree, so a doctrine cannot develop into something that contradicts itself. Changing the essence of a doctrine is changing the doctrine itself and would constitute a rupture within the Church.

And how many times does it need to be said that it is the understanding of Apostolic preaching that advances?. Authentic interpretation of this revealed understanding is entrusted to the Magisterium (Dei Verbum, section 10). Read the encyclical. Look at the link in a comment that provides information about the theology of Joseph Ratzinger, whose thinking was seminal to Dei Verbum. Then argue with it if you will, but I don’t believe it will change Church dogma. It is an error to claim that understanding that has not yet been revealed is already understood.

 

[Mongo]

Rather than answer that, it would be better if you looked at Dei Verbum and the link in a comment above to the theology of Joseph Ratzinger. Then argue with it, if you will.

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.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

And how many times does it need to be said that it is the understanding of Apostolic preaching that advances?. Authentic interpretation of this revealed understanding is entrusted to the Magisterium (Dei Verbum, section 10). Read the encyclical. Look at the link in a comment that provides information about the theology of Joseph Ratzinger, whose thinking was seminal to Dei Verbum. Then argue with it if you will, but I don’t believe it will change Church dogma.

So are you in agreement with Vouthon or not? Can an acorn produce a pine tree? It is late and I have work tomorrow like most people. I don’t have time to read Dei Verbum. I accept that understanding of doctrine can change but never in essence. I’m sorry. I should have said that the Church’s understanding of a doctrine never changes in essence of the doctrine itself. Pardon me, I can be a bit of a dullard at times.

 

[Vouthon]

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.

There 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.

You appear to be questioning doctrinal development, unless I have grievously misunderstood your meaning. If so, then you are engaged in a different discussion, because we should all as Catholics be on exactly the same page regarding the undeniable fact that doctrine develops. Where legitimate disagreement comes in is over what constitutes a legitimate development and what doesn’t, which is a question of great importance.

Gerhard Cardinal Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, one of the most vocal critics of the Kaspar proposal at the recent Synod, published a book last year, The Hope of the Family (Ignatius, 2014), in which he emphatically affirms that “dogma develops and is evolving.” Those are his own words, verbatim. Doctrinal development is a matter that is not up for discussion, unless one aspires to become a Puritanical Sola Scriptura Protestant.

 

[Vouthon]

If I may quote St.Vincent of Lérins who wrote concerning doctrinal development in the fifth century,: “Therefore, let there be growth and abundant progress in understanding, knowledge, and wisdom, in each and all, in individuals and in the whole Church, at all times and in the progress of ages, but only with the proper limits…it [progress of religion] must be such as may be truly a progress of the faith, not a change; for when each several thing is improved in itself, that is progress; but when a thing is turned out of one thing into another, that is change."

Hence why I mooted the concept of one seed growing into a different tree. An acorn seed cannot grow into a pine. They are two different ‘types’ in essence. However a caterpillar does naturally evolve into a butterfly. Hence why we need proper discernment.

As you can see, doctrinal development has always been recognised as a teaching of the Church. One would have a hard time justifying anything about Catholic doctrine historically without recourse to it.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

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.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

If I may quote St.Vincent of Lérins who wrote concerning doctrinal development in the fifth century,: “Therefore, let there be growth and abundant progress in understanding, knowledge, and wisdom, in each and all, in individuals and in the whole Church, at all times and in the progress of ages, but only with the proper limits…it [progress of religion] must be such as may be truly a progress of the faith, not a change; for when each several thing is improved in itself, that is progress; but when a thing is turned out of one thing into another, that is change."

Hence why I mooted the concept of one seed growing into a different tree. An acorn seed cannot grow into a pine. They are two different ‘types’ in essence. However a caterpillar does naturally evolve into a butterfly. Hence why we need proper discernment.

As you can see, doctrinal development has always been recognised as a teaching of the Church. One would have a hard time justifying anything about Catholic doctrine historically without recourse to it.

I have no disagreement with this

 

[Vouthon]

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.

Indeed, the proof of the pudding is most definitely in the term “dogmatic” constitution on divine revelation. It really beguiles me why anyone would not get the plain message that dogmatic means, well, dogmatic

 

[Thomas_White]

So are you in agreement with Vouthon or not? Can an acorn produce a pine tree? It is late and I have work tomorrow like most people. I don’t have time to read Dei Verbum. I accept that understanding of doctrine can change but never in essence. I’m sorry. I should have said that the Church’s understanding of a doctrine never changes in essence of the doctrine itself. Pardon me, I can be a bit of a dullard at times.

So are you in agreement with Vouthon or not? Can an acorn produce a pine tree? It is late and I have work tomorrow like most people. I don’t have time to read Dei Verbum. I accept that understanding of doctrine can change but never in essence. I’m sorry. I should have said that the Church’s understanding of a doctrine never changes in essence of the doctrine itself. Pardon me, I can be a bit of a dullard at times.

I haven’t yet read Vouthon’s comment, but I am in agreement with Dei Verbum. I cannot say how the understanding of doctrine might change when the full understanding of divine revelation is not yet known. That is not intended as any sort of an evasive answer. If I understand the encyclical, then I cannot know, and nobody else could either, not even the Church. In ‘God and the World’, this is the way then-Cardinal Ratzinger explains it.