P
Pope_Noah_I
Guest
How is it not the same as Modernism?
- Status
G
Genesis315
Guest
Both sought to explain how the Church’s doctrine grew from an acorn to an oak. One was the correct answer and one was the incorrect answer.
Modernism’s doctrine was this:
The doctrines and dogmas of the Church were produced by the consciousness of the Church, and after a struggle, ratified by the teaching authority. As times change the consciousness of the Church can change the dogmas, etc.
For example, the modernists claimed Jesus divinity was a product of the Church’s consciousness well after his actual life and not revealed directly by God and handed down.
Development of Doctrine is this:
What was implicit is made explicit, often resulting in more precision, new terminology is also created to explain certain truths. Likewise, new situations require timeless principles to be applied to new situations thus creating “new” doctrines in line with the old.
For example, the Early Church would not know what “transubstantiation” was. But if you sat down and explained it to them, they would sure agree. Likewise, there’s no teaching on Christ’s two wills for centuries (defined at the Constantinople III) yet it was implicit in the dogmas concerning Christ’s two natures. Finally, the Church has had no doctrine on stem cell research or cloning until recently, but the Magisterium has applied the timeless truths to these new situations.
G
Genesis315
Guest
The Hierarchy of truth is another way to see how development happens. Contrary to popular misinterpretation this does not mean that some truths are more important than others, but rather when seeking to understand the faith it is better to understand some truths before tackling others since certain truths are built on others.
For example, as I said before, the Church first developed its teaching on Jesus’ person and natures before debating and asserting the truth as to his wills. Likewise, we see the Church develop its teaching on original sin in response to the Pelagian heresy before developing its teaching on the Immaculate Conception.
All these things were always there implicitly, but it took time to draw them out. As questions were asked, the Church sought the answers in Divine Revelation, and new answers often led to new questions and so forth.
Modernists on the other hand simply make things that were once true, false. It’s completely different.
For example, as I said before, the Church first developed its teaching on Jesus’ person and natures before debating and asserting the truth as to his wills. Likewise, we see the Church develop its teaching on original sin in response to the Pelagian heresy before developing its teaching on the Immaculate Conception.
All these things were always there implicitly, but it took time to draw them out. As questions were asked, the Church sought the answers in Divine Revelation, and new answers often led to new questions and so forth.
Modernists on the other hand simply make things that were once true, false. It’s completely different.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
It is the same as Modernism.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Why? I defined both above and they’re different.
B
bobzills
Guest
The line between the two is thinner than indicated above. For example, take the question of which marriages are valid and which are not. The reasons for declaring a marriage invalid have been stretched so far that just about anyone can get an annulment. According to Father Doherty, a tribunal official is quoted as saying: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid. "
R
Rocky
Guest
If this is true, then the Tribunal is not doing its job correctly. But even with all the annulments granted in the US (which I think has the most annulments granted versus other countries) not all are granted, and I seriously doubt if all would ever be granted. But the reason more annulments are granted in the US than in other countries probably has more to do with the poor catechesis and understanding of the faith that US Catholics have been taught in the past 30-35 years than in anything else, even considering how much our US culture has become selfish in that time too.
B
bobzills
Guest
I think it has more to do with watering down the requirements for getting the annulment. Most people seeking the annulment do get it. For example, according to the
US Catholic magazine of April 1997 on page 7, of all those who apply for an annulment in the St. Paul Minneapolis area, 97% are approved, and declared invalid.
Is this a reflection of development of doctrine or a reflection of modernism or is it an admixture of both?
E
East_and_West
Guest
Its an example of pastors not shepherding their flocks properly. It has nothing to do with a change in teaching.
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
If you believe that doctrine is believed by all Christians at *all *times in all places then you don’t believe in modernism. Your explanation seemed to agree with that (correct me if I’ve misunderstood you). However, your manner of exposition struck me as weak and playing into the modernists’ hands. It is dangerous to speak of the Church creating “new” doctrines, even if you put this into quotation marks. Likewise, it is not good to speak of the Church “looking for answers” when heresies arise. This seems to indicate that the Church didn’t know the answer, which is false. I just think we need to be careful in keeping a strict separation between legit development of the expression of doctrine and modernism. The slightest bit of ambiguity can lead one down a dangerous path. I suspect this is one of the reasons that we don’t talk about “development of doctrine” in Orthodoxy, even though we believe that the expression of Faith organically develops.
God bless,
Adam
P
paradoxy
Guest
Tag: EOOO? 
B
bobzills
Guest
I disagree. I see it as a complete reversal of the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage in the practical realm. Just look at the statistics for the USA: 9 annulments granted in the year 1930, whereas it has been running more than 60,000 per year recently.
- Status