Development of Doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dempsey1919
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dempsey1919

Guest
The Church teaches that our understanding of doctrine develops over time. That is to say, our knowledge of a particular doctrine improves and we are able to come to a deeper and better understanding. For example, the Church has always taught the Real Presence, but our understanding of transubstantiation improved.

However, when do we draw the line?

This ‘development of doctrine’ could be used to endorse heretical teaching. It has been said that no teaching is abrogated but that our knowledge of it improves - this allows the Church to clarify the meaning of the doctrine. But what if this greater ‘understanding’ causes new doctrines to be developed - doctrines that have never been taught before? Could this ever happen? Or has it ever happened?

For thousands of years, the Catholic Church taught that there is ‘No Salvation outside the Church’. They taught this plainly. It was necessary for all people to be converted to the one true Church of Christ headed by the Bishop of Rome. However, this doctrine has been somewhat ignored in recent years.

It has been explained that salvation is possible for anyone who lives a moral life according to their conscience even though through ignorance, they do not know of the Catholic Church. Was this understanding the result of a development of doctrine?

This belief has led some within the Church to believe that conversion is not that important because Christ is present in all Christian Churches. The Catholic Church is no longer as necessary for salvation as it once was. This has led some to believe that it is not that important to become Catholic - other religions have a place in the plan of salvation.

Is this the result of the development of doctrine.

Here is a quote from a Papal Encyclical that clearly shows the importance of conversion:
MORTALIUM ANIMOS by Pius XI 1928
Click to expand...
So, **Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church **of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: **"The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.
**
Click to expand...
However, I have been told that our understanding of ecumenism and the need for conversion has ‘developed’ over time. I was told to read Ut Unum Sint by John Paul II. Here is the link for this particular encyclical:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

I will not provide quotations from this encyclical but I will leave you with my thoughts. From reading the two encyclicals, it does appear that the focus of the Church has indeed shifted somewhat and there appears to be a lack of continuity. Ut Unum Sint is far more accomodating to Protestants than previous encyclicals. To me, ecumenism seems pointless and fruitless unless the conversion of non-believers is the primary focus.

Has our understanding of ecumenism and the need for conversion changed - or should I say ‘developed’ over time?
 
The church still teaches there is no salvation outside the church. What has developed is the understanding that others may be joined to the church in visable ways or some not so visable,But if anyone goes to heaven it’s thru the Catholic Church.
 
shaka_maka said:
The church still teaches there is no salvation outside the church. What has developed is the understanding that others may be joined to the church in visable ways or some not so visable,But if anyone goes to heaven it’s thru the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
👍
 
So the teachings of the church are the Doctrines.

The Doctrines (teachings) evolve into Dogmas?

Aren’t the Dogmas “the end of the line”?
 
Development of Doctrine works as such–what was implicit is made explicit, new terminology is introduced, and old principles are applied to new situations.

For example, as for what was implicit being made explicit, Christ’s two wills was implicit in His two natures but was not taught explicitly by for a centuries after the death of the Apostles.

Likewise, the term “transubstantiation” was introduced after a thousand years or more.

The third way would be Church doctrine on cloning for example. There was no teaching on cloning until recently because cloning didn’t exist. But the Magisterium applies the timeless truths to the new situation and develops the doctrine on cloning.
 
In the Church teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church, there was also concurrently the teaching that Baptism was the door to enter the Church, but also that those who had not been Baptized could be save.

The development comes in synthesizing these three doctrines to explain how the unbaptized can be united to the Church.

Culpable heresy, schism, and apostasy still separate the Baptized from the Church, excluding them from salvation, however, it is the pastoral policy of the Church to assume those baptized who have never been Catholic are not culpable–this policy is different, for better or worse.
 
Concerning the difference between doctrine and dogma, a dogma (also called credenda) must be believed with a divine and Catholic faith (examples of this are the Divinity of Christ, the Real Presence, and the Assumption). A denial of one of these is the sin of heresy.

A doctrine, (or tenenda) must only be held and obeyed, and when it is taught dfinitively in a binding manner on the whole Church, by an Ecumenical Council, the Pope, or the ordinary universal magisterium, it is infallible and irreformable (examples of this are church teaching on contraception (and any other moral teaching for that matter)and the all male priesthood). A denial of these is the lesser sin of error (it does not separate one from the Church automatically like heresy).

Doctrines do not evolve into dogmas. Rather, they are elevated as such. Likewise, doctrines, once they meet the above test, cannot be changed anymore than dogmas can be.
 
Dempsey1919 said:
Here is a quote from a Papal Encyclical that clearly shows the importance of conversion:

However, I have been told that our understanding of ecumenism and the need for conversion has ‘developed’ over time. I was told to read Ut Unum Sint by John Paul II. Here is the link for this particular encyclical:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

I will not provide quotations from this encyclical but I will leave you with my thoughts. From reading the two encyclicals, it does appear that the focus of the Church has indeed shifted somewhat and there appears to be a lack of continuity. Ut Unum Sint is far more accomodating to Protestants than previous encyclicals. To me, ecumenism seems pointless and fruitless unless the conversion of non-believers is the primary focus.

Has our understanding of ecumenism and the need for conversion changed - or should I say ‘developed’ over time?
Click to expand...
I think you should read read the encyclical by John Paul II again. Here are some pertinent parts:
John Paul II:
  1. Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). This unity, which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ’s mission. Nor is it some secondary attribute of the community of his disciples. Rather, it belongs to the very essence of this community. God wills the Church, because he wills unity, and unity is an expression of the whole depth of his* agape*.

In effect, this unity bestowed by the Holy Spirit does not merely consist in the gathering of people as a collection of individuals. It is a unity constituted by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion.​

** The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, “especially in what concerns God and his Church”,33 and adherence to truth’s demands. A “being together” which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart.**​

  1. All these elements bear within themselves a tendency towards unity, having their fullness in that unity. It is not a matter of adding together all the riches scattered throughout the various Christian Communities in order to arrive at a Church which God has in mind for the future. In accordance with the great Tradition, attested to by the Fathers of the East and of the West, the Catholic Church believes that in the Pentecost Event God has already manifested the Church in her eschatological reality, which he had prepared “from the time of Abel, the just one”.19 This reality is something already given. Consequently we are even now in the last times. The elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other Communities,20 where certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasized. Ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity.

86.** The Constitution Lumen Gentium**, in a fundamental affirmation echoed by the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio,141142 The Decree on Ecumenism emphasizes the presence in her of the fullness (plenitudo) of the means of salvation.143 s**tates that the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.**Full unity will come about when all share in the fullness of the means of salvation entrusted by Christ to his Church.​

  1. The Catholic Church, both in her *praxis *and in her solemn documents, holds that th**e communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God’s plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion. **Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith. The first part of the Acts of the Apostles presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the community—all the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the Church so that under her sole Head, who is Jesus Christ, she may be visibly present in the world as the communion of all his disciples.
Click to expand...
 
It also bears pointing out that one must distinguish between the truth revealed by God, which the Church can never contradict, and disciplinary or pastoral policies which can be changed over time.

For example, in the early Church, a few local Councils like that of Carthage forbid Catholics to pray with heretics. On the other hand, Pope Leo XIII established the Confraternity of Compassion where Catholics could pray with non-Catholics for unity. Pope Pius XI, in the face of pan-Christian movements which sought to create the false “being together” again rejected by Pope John Paul II above, tightened the reigns a little. For better or worse, the reigns have been re-loosened. But, that doesn’t mean it’s heretical or evil.
 
Pope Benedict’s book “Jesus of Nazareth” has an excellent discussion of the issue of Development of Doctrine vs. “When do we stop”, one of the OP’s original questions.

In my words, he stresses the importance of doctrinal development, as many things we understand now we did not understand as clearly in the early days.

He also stressed that development is and does need to continue - there is much we can still learn from revelation.

He answers “Where does it stop” - when doctrinal development becomes in conflict with the infallible teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. Things that have been defined infallibly are well, infallible. So the only conclusion can be that the doctrinal development went awry.
 
I would also suggest you look at Dominus Iesus especially the portion on The Church and other Religions and Salvation. Starting about in the 20 in the paragraphing, just past half way through the document.

you can find it at the Vatican site or a link from my blog on the right hand side, will take you directly to it.

I found where Pope JPII reinterated this portion in a speech. I found that at the EWTN in their church document archives.**
 
This is an interesting area to explore the concept of development of doctrine, but it also has a few pitfalls.

One pitfall is to say that the doctrine on salvation outside the Church has changes, because it is no longer automatic to call any Christian outside the Church a heretic. But the thing is, the doctrine has not changed, although the situation of our separated brethren has.

To begin with, Protestants were those in the Church who chose to be in open revolt against the Church. But over the centuries, many people who were never Catholics, but were validly baptized, came to make up the vast majority in the Protestant ecclesial communities. The doctrine was not developed to address this at the beginning of the Protestant breakaway. There was no reason for such a development.

For my part, this is an area I do not tend to get too engaged in. This is a highly technical theological area, and even Cardinal Newman’s seminal writings on the topic are frequently considered his most complex and intense. No light read, them. But I do delight when I see developments such as the one concerning the doctrine of salvation outside the Church. It demonstrates that the Faith is a living word, not a dead letter.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
This is a topic I will be doing much reading on since our background is of another faith. We have many people in our family that we consider far more Christian than many Catholics we run into. And in my opion, some of them are priests. Ironically, its the cafateria Catholics I have issue with the most. I still take issue with a comment that a Catholic School teacher made one day as she tried to inspire me I guess. She said “there are many paths that lead to God [or heave]”. Correct me if I say this wrong, I told her that that is something that is widely misunderstood by many Catholics. It doesn’t mean that you can be anything. It merely recognizes that there are those who are outside the boundaries of the Church and that the Church does not judge them to be condemned to hell because they are Catholic - even though that used to be a widely accepted beleif even though it was not the Churches teaching. I went on to say that If someone is saved that is outside the Church, they are save because of God’s infintite mercy through the Church of Christ and not through or by their own false beliefs. Something like that.
 
In its way, there was (and is) a confusion among Catholics comparable to the one among extreme Protestant groups.

I once heard a young chap telling people he was going to do missionary work in Siberia. There were, he claimed, virtually no Christians there. Of course, the Orthodox Church was there, but they weren’t Christians. Neither were Catholics, he also said. Neither would get to heaven.

Fr. Feeney from Boston typified the corresponding Catholic error. If you weren’t Catholic, you were damned, period. He was told to stop procaiming that. He didn’t. He was excommunicated. This was in the late 1940’s.

CS Lewis, in Mere Christianity, gave a summation of the situation. He stated that we know that all those who are saved are saved through Christ. What we do not know for a fact is that those who do not know him cannot also be saved through him. (And in stating that, he made a number of extreme evangelical Protestants very upset.) The role of the Church in salvation is fully consistent with that observation.

This all ties in with the general revelation St. Paul alludes to in the first chapter of Romans. But we must never forget that none of this is an excuse to shirk the duty given to us in the Great Commission.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
In its way, there was (and is) a confusion among Catholics comparable to the one among extreme Protestant groups.
Click to expand...
Very confused Catholics.
Gerry_Hunter said:
I once heard a young chap telling people he was going to do missionary work in Siberia. There were, he claimed, virtually no Christians there. Of course, the Orthodox Church was there, but they weren’t Christians. Neither were Catholics, he also said. Neither would get to heaven.
Click to expand...
Interesing Gerry, we used to be just like that young chap. However, we began our break from the “church of Christ” because of several situations where the preachers and elders were referring to those unsaved or there are no Christians there. Example, all of those poor Catholic immagrants living in appartments “aparartment dwellers” I believe is the term he used. My wife wrote and email, and woe her being a woman was usurping his authority and the elders called us in. I was still naive about all of that, but realize that night I wanted to end their lives for abusing my wife the way they did. One had a Master in Psycology and just manipulated everything we said. They used everything that was sincere and good against us. This was the straw that broke the camels back. We then moved to a smaller (usually big mistake) congregation of the same flavor. The first night the preacher did something very heretical, he discussed with enthusiasm historical church beliefs that showed that the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed were put together for the large community of uneducated Christians because becoming Christian was a death verdict. Interesting analogy. They did not once claim that the Catholic Church/Orthodox made this up. In fact it was an aknowledgement for the first time by an Evangelical Fundamentalist group (meaning the elders gave him permission) to come to the understanding that this was in fact historically true. He asked us all to stand and recite all 3 creeds [Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed (pre filioque and post filioques)]. My wife looked at me in shock of how I knew these ancient unknown creeds. I leaned over in the middle and said jokingly “heresy”, but truly meaning it at the time, but baffled and wondering if God was calling back to be Catholic. Afterwards I told her the use and how often th prayers were used and why. I told her, well, I guess we’re all catholic now. I know it disturbed her. The Churches of Christ typically reject all “man made creeds” period. Who knew our television would get stuck on EWTN?😊 When I first heard Scott Hahn I called him an idiot. But I really liked Fr. Benedict Groschel. Fr. Mitch was my wife’s favorite. I also listend fondly to Fr. John Corapy and ArcBishop F.J. Sheen (wheened on him in my teens). If anyone remembers "Fr. Carey Landry he was in my era and a pastor in our local university.
Gerry_Hunter said:
Fr. Feeney from Boston typified the corresponding Catholic error. If you weren’t Catholic, you were damned, period. He was told to stop procaiming that. He didn’t. He was excommunicated. This was in the late 1940’s.
Click to expand...
What my dad taught me. My mom hated Catholics.
Blessings to you.
 
I can add precisely nothing to this thread at the moment aside from noting that it is excellent and that several have summarized Church teaching so concisely and well that I may have to go to Confession tomorrow for the sin of envy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top