Development of Doctrine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Classicist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Classicist

Guest
Friends & Brothers in Christ,

The theory of doctrinal development confuses me.

Does it mean that a man could question the Immaculate Conception in 1800 and be a good Catholic, while the same man could question the Immaculate Conception in 1900 and be a heretic who risks damnation? How could this be so, if truth remains the same forever?

Also, importantly, does the Church actually teach doctrinal development Magisterially? We gotta be sure of that before we put our feet down, after all. 😉
 
Good question!
Does it mean that a man could question the Immaculate Conception in 1800 and be a good Catholic, while the same man could question the Immaculate Conception in 1900 and be a heretic who risks damnation? How could this be so, if truth remains the same forever?
Click to expand...
We are only culpable for what we know. The faithful are guided by the Church. If the Church has not ruled dogmatically on an article of faith, such as the Immaculate Conception, or held the doctrine as part of Her ordinary universal magisterium, then there is room for individuals to question or doubt - to a degree. As we always need to be guided by the Church, if She points strongly in a particular direction, it would be foolish to go in the opposite without compelling personal reasons. So, to answer your question plainly, “yes”, although I do believe that the Immaculate Conception (in some way, though obviously not fully) was part of the ordinary magisterium even before the dogmatic declaration. You would not be a heretic, since, according to Canon Law, heresy “is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same”. Since the Immaculate Conception wasn’t dogmatically defined and perhaps not fully part of the ordinary magisterium, it would not be considered “divine and catholic faith”.
 
HI C.

The sinlessness of Mary has always been upheld by the universal church. The discussions centered around the moment that she acquired the sanctifying grace that Christians get at baptism. Some, like St. Thomas Aquinas, believed that it was at the first moment after conception; others that she was, so to say, created sinless, that she was free of sin at conception. The proclamation of the dogma settled the issue.

A dogma is not proclaimed in a vacuum or out of a clear blue sky. Most dogmas have been proclaimed by councils in response to an attack on a position already held by the Church. And councils have sometimes used the occasion to clarify some issues, which you might call doctrinal development. It does not teach doctrinal development, it just does it.

Jesus has said of the Church, "Who hears you, hears me… The Church has the mission to teach, and we have the duty to be taught. When the Church teaches something, good Catholics don’t ask themselves whether it is a dogma or not. They do their best to conform.

What do you think?

Verbum
 
Just for clarity’s sake: this isn’t about the I.C. dogma, but the idea of Development qua Development. The I.C. of the BVM was merely an example. 🙂

The thing that’s confusing to me about “new” dogmas like the Assumption of Mary (1950) is that they make people question the ancient faith “once delivered to the saints”. If the Full Faith of Salvation was “once delivered” to the apostles, and the Assumption was developed as an idea later (some say by Manichaean legends, the Transitus of Mary), how can it, or any other “developed doctrine”, suddenly become required?

This isn’t really about invincible ignorance, but about the Content of “The Gospel” from age to age. 🙂 What is “essential” to the Faith? Simply whatever the Church says? Yet, the Church did not say the I.C. and the Assumption were necessary before - and now they are necessary. Does this mean things like the Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, etc., can “develop”/change as well - or is it just our “understanding” which develops?

I’m just afraid we’re creating truth(s) as we go along, is all. 😛
 
Classicist said:
Friends & Brothers in Christ,

The theory of doctrinal development confuses me.

Does it mean that a man could question the Immaculate Conception in 1800 and be a good Catholic, while the same man could question the Immaculate Conception in 1900 and be a heretic who risks damnation? How could this be so, if truth remains the same forever?

Also, importantly, does the Church actually teach doctrinal development Magisterially? We gotta be sure of that before we put our feet down, after all. 😉
Click to expand...
That depends on how you see the (degrees of) obligations of belief that are binding on us. Just because something hasn’t been defined infallibly doesn’t mean it’s not binding. There’s a probably dominant view that It’s less binding but it’s still binding. You’ll find this view in modern CDF (Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, the Propaganda) or in the older Catholic Encyclopedia. But for example the 1st Vatican Council seems to show cardinals or bishops being convinced only by getting outvoted on a definition.

At any rate, a final definition is binding, while the absence of a final definition means there can be no issue of even material heresy. Heresy is seen in the light of your faith obligations and your condition with regard to them, rather than the contents per se of what you believe.

As for change, development isn’t supposed to be change, as in alteration. It’s supposed to consist in adding to the existing deposit of faith. It can look like a change when you move from the starting point towards the fullness, but that’s progress, not alteration. There’s no going back from final definitions. (While there has been going back from seemingly dominant theological opinions.)

Also, some dogmas were not defined because there was no need, e.g. nobody diverged or questioned. The emergence of new opinions would require investigation and an authoritative pronouncement.
 
The Church doesn’t generally define things until they are challenged or brought into new circumstances. The most basic doctrines concerning the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation were hammered out over six ecumenical councils, ranging from A.D. 325 to 681. Before 325 did the Church have no idea who God is or what the Incarnation meant? Of course not. Was it confusing to them to have those things defined centuries after the Ascension? Well, there was confusion to be sure, because of heretics; but they were identified as heretics on the grounds of what had always been believed. The details and implications of revelation are spelled out over time.

I am not aware of the fact of doctrinal development having itself been defined, but is that really necessary? Its existence is necessarily implied by the authority of the magisterium.
 
Good point, Ad Orientem.

Let’s take Nicaea in 325. That Council used the words “ousia” and “hypostasis” as equivalent terms for nature, essence, or being - and it anathematized anyone who contradicted that. Because of the Arian heresy, however, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa began to separate “ousia” into “nature” and “hypostasis” into “person”. Their theology influenced the Fathers of Constantinople in 381.

By the time of the 3rd & 4th Ecumenical Councils, the two words for essence & person were understood more clearly than they had been 100 years before - and they were used accordingly in the canons of Ephesus & Chalcedon. Is this a good example of Development of Doctrine?
 
Classicist said:
Friends & Brothers in Christ,

The theory of doctrinal development confuses me.

Does it mean that a man could question the Immaculate Conception in 1800 and be a good Catholic, while the same man could question the Immaculate Conception in 1900 and be a heretic who risks damnation? How could this be so, if truth remains the same forever?

Also, importantly, does the Church actually teach doctrinal development Magisterially? We gotta be sure of that before we put our feet down, after all. 😉
Click to expand...
Traditionally, the Church has only spoken when necessary. In particular, you will see this when something which has been generally accepted as part of Sacred Tradition has come into question or when there was controversy. This is why you see doctrines being proclaimed at different times in Church history.

The proclaimed doctrines about Mary were really not about Mary at all, but rather about Christ. For example, In order to truly define Christ’s true humanity, the doctrine of Divine Motherhood was proclaimed. Regarding the Immaculate Conception, we can see Andrew, Augustine, Ephrem, Gregory Nazianzen, Romanos, etc. all spoke of this, just in context of Mary as a worthy vessel for Christ. In addition, Biblical exegesis helps us to understand that this was a Traditional understanding of the Church. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. The word expresses a characteristic quality of Mary, something which is inherently part of her and implies something which has always been there and always will be.

Regarding the deceleration of the doctrine in 1854, we can see some of the fruits of the Reformation on the Church in her need to clarify something which had been generally accepted by the Faithful for a very long time.

The Sources of Catholic Dogma, is a fantastic text which does a great job showing where the doctrines of our Faith came from. It includes sources such as the Bible, Councils, Encyclicals, and the Church Fathers. It can be found here for free, or purchase online at Amazon.
amazon.com/Sources-Catholic-Dogma-Henry-Denzinger/dp/1930278225/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365034264&sr=1-1
archive.org/details/TheSourcesOfCatholicDogma

I hope that is helpful.
 
Classicist said:
Friends & Brothers in Christ,

The theory of doctrinal development confuses me.

Does it mean that a man could question the Immaculate Conception in 1800 and be a good Catholic, while the same man could question the Immaculate Conception in 1900 and be a heretic who risks damnation? How could this be so, if truth remains the same forever?

Also, importantly, does the Church actually teach doctrinal development Magisterially? We gotta be sure of that before we put our feet down, after all. 😉
Click to expand...
Just as you weren’t exposed to all known knowledge at the time you first began school (nor would you have been able to comprehend if it had it been given to you), so God did not reveal to His Church everything at once.
John 16:12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.Jesus spoke these words to his apostles at the Last Supper, just before they left for the Garden of Gethsame. In speaking to them, He was speaking to His Church - “His Body”/those who would spread His word throughout the world. And the Holy Spirit has guided His Church in truth. When His Church required it and was prepared to understand it properly, He revealed it to the leader/s of His Church so he/they could proclaim it.

You know how knowledge is – it’s progressive. Prerequisites almost always required.
 
The Church solemnly teaches development of doctrine in the Dogmatic Constitution “Dei Verbum.” The paragraph that would interest you is this:
  1. Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
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.
 
Classicist said:
Good point, Ad Orientem.

Let’s take Nicaea in 325. That Council used the words “ousia” and “hypostasis” as equivalent terms for nature, essence, or being - and it anathematized anyone who contradicted that. Because of the Arian heresy, however, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa began to separate “ousia” into “nature” and “hypostasis” into “person”. Their theology influenced the Fathers of Constantinople in 381.

By the time of the 3rd & 4th Ecumenical Councils, the two words for essence & person were understood more clearly than they had been 100 years before - and they were used accordingly in the canons of Ephesus & Chalcedon. Is this a good example of Development of Doctrine?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a good example.
 
Classicist said:
Friends & Brothers in Christ,

The theory of doctrinal development confuses me.

Does it mean that a man could question the Immaculate Conception in 1800 and be a good Catholic, while the same man could question the Immaculate Conception in 1900 and be a heretic who risks damnation? How could this be so, if truth remains the same forever?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does mean that a man could question the Immaculate Conception in 1800 and still be a good Catholic. It is that very questioning - that pro and con of opinions - that is important in helping the Church arrive at the truth and know the proper terminology to use in defining it.

Mary’s Immaculate Conception has always been the truth, but God had not yet revealed it for certain to His Church prior to 1854. Thus, Catholics were free to speculate and have personal opinions on that topic.

If you study the history of declared Catholic doctrines and dogmas you will discover that almost all of the infallible pronouncements came about because of heresies contradicting what had been commonly taught and believed since the time of Christ (without having been infallibly defined/declared). The false teachings sort of “forced” the Church to determine and proclaim what the truth was - to define it as an infallible truth.

A very few others (like the Immaculate Conception you mentioned) came about as the result of reconciling early beliefs and practices with revealed truths. Because of Scripture and Church teaching that all men are subject to original sin, it took guidance from the Holy Spirit to finally help the Church understand how the Immaculate Conception could be reconciled with the teaching on original sin.
 
This is one of the main issues between east and west. According to the west most of the fathers would be heritical on one count or another, because they made clear statements that contradict modern dogmas, like the immaculate conception. They assume that these saints wouldn’t be heretics because they would accept it now that it has been defined, but this presents a problem. What was once orthodox is now heretical.
 
Newman:
"But whatever be the risk of corruption from intercourse with the world around, such a risk must be encountered {40} if a great idea is duly to be understood, and much more if it is to be fully exhibited. It is elicited and expanded by trial, and battles into perfection and supremacy. Nor does it escape the collision of opinion even in its earlier years, nor does it remain truer to itself, and with a better claim to be considered one and the same, though externally protected from vicissitude and change. It is indeed sometimes said that the stream is clearest near the spring. Whatever use may fairly be made of this image, it does not apply to the history of a philosophy or belief, which on the contrary is more equable, and purer, and stronger, when its bed has become deep, and broad, and full. It necessarily rises out of an existing state of things, and for a time savours of the soil. Its vital element needs disengaging from what is foreign and temporary, and is employed in efforts after freedom which become more vigorous and hopeful as its years increase. Its beginnings are no measure of its capabilities, nor of its scope. At first no one knows what it is, or what it is worth. It remains perhaps for a time quiescent; it tries, as it were, its limbs, and proves the ground under it, and feels its way. From time to time it makes essays which fail, and are in consequence abandoned. It seems in suspense which way to go; it wavers, and at length strikes out in one definite direction. In time it enters upon strange territory; points of controversy alter their bearing; parties rise around it; dangers and hopes appear in new relations; and old principles reappear under new forms.*** It changes with them in order to remain the same. In a higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often***. "
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Newman: …]
*** It changes with them in order to remain the same. In a higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often***. "
Click to expand...
How do we square this with St. Paul’s injunction not to heed even an angel from Heaven if he preaches a different (i.e. changed) Gospel than the one which Paul preached? How much change is guaranteed and how much is proscribed?

The Keys of the Kingdom must have something to do with this. If the Church binds & looses, that is that. 🙂
 
Classicist said:
How do we square this with St. Paul’s injunction not to heed even an angel from Heaven if he preaches a different (i.e. changed) Gospel than the one which Paul preached? How much change is guaranteed and how much is proscribed?

The Keys of the Kingdom must have something to do with this. If the Church binds & looses, that is that. 🙂
Click to expand...
The deposit of Faith never changes.

What changes is the articulation of doctrines. That is what Newman is saying.

Doctrines are expressions of Divine Truths that are contained in the Deposit of Faith.

The dogmatic principle is that words can express Divine Truths, however imperfectly. Just as a polygon inside a circle can be refined with more and more sides so that it eventually appears to merge with the circle. So Doctrines are refined with ever more precision always approximating ever closer to the Divine Truth.
 
Christ’s injunction was to go out and teach the whole world (not read to the whole world).

Teaching means to break it down to the level of the pupil so they can understand it.

As knowledge advances, so our knowledge grows deeper and more profound in a subject.
We see more sides to it and it takes us to fuller knowledge. It is a slow growth.

The church councils are an example of this as we follow them thru the centuries.
One council is based on the ideas of another council’s for further explaination and examination. This is a progression of greater understanding and precision of our faith that has always been there from the start but not brought out. The definition of the Trinity is one example of this.

So look to the councils for proof and approval.

Just a thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top