Doctrine and truth

[KGM]

I understand that once the pope declares an article of our faith as doctrine we have the utmost confidence that it is true. However, what do we do when something is taught but not defined as doctrine. For example the Assumption of Mary was taught, but not defined until the 1950’s (I believe). Another example, limbo for the unbaptized was taught, but not defined until Pope Benedict declared it as not true. Here is my dilemma: scripture says that the Holy Spirit will lead the church into all truth, but depending on where you fall in the history of the church some things were taught to be true, though not yet defined, and when formally defined some have turned out to be true and some have not. Therefore, are we as Catholics at times believing some things to be true when they really are not (i.e. limbo)? In other words I am having difficulty with what scripture promises and what has actually happened over the course of Catholic history. Since I believe in the magisterium there must be some answer to all of this which would clear up my confusion. In conjunction with this idea before the 1950’s would it have been sinful to reject the notion that Mary was assumed into heaven since this was not formally defined?

 

[Convert66]

These are very astute questions.

You might want to consult an apologist here for sound doctrine, but my laymen’s perspective runs like this. The rejection of limbo was an ethical development, owing to simple progress in matters of ethical philosophy. While the doctrine was considered, and even encouraged in some quarters without doubt, it was not necessary to believe it to still enjoy full communion with the Church in good standing. One could hold it as true or not.

The same applies to apparitions. It is not out of line to believe in many of them that may not as yet have the imprimatur of the Church. One can decide for one’s self. The Assumption was such a doctrine (now Dogma) as well. One could still retain doubts and remain in good standing, or one could believe and remain in good standing. After being declared Dogma or essential to the Faith, it is now essential to proper Catholic teaching.

These examples rather identify the Holy Spirit’s work in my mind. Leading the Church “. . .into all truth,” sounds like a good description to me.

You may want to give Venerable Newman a read online or grab a copy from the library or bookstore near you.

Again, very good questions and you may want to submit these to one of the resident apologists.

All my best. . .

 

[passus]

However, what do we do when something is taught but not defined as doctrine.

I’m not sure of the context in which you mean “taught.” Do you mean taught by the Church…in authoritative documents? Do you mean taught from the pulpit? Taught in the writings of scholars or theologians?

For example the Assumption of Mary was taught, but not defined until the 1950’s (I believe).

And up until that point, a Catholic was free to 1) make a personal decision based on whatever evidence he or she believed to be valid for that position on the matter 2) follow along with the commonly held position 3) deviate from the commonly held position 4) have no position at all.

You are not expected to believe what we do not know. When it comes to matters of the faith which the Church has not defined as true or denounced as false, it’s basically speculation until something more is done with it.

Another example, limbo for the unbaptized was taught, but not defined until Pope Benedict declared it as not true.

Ermm…I am not aware of anything from Pope Benedict declaring limbo as “not true” or rejecting it.

Here is my dilemma: scripture says that the Holy Spirit will lead the church into all truth, but depending on where you fall in the history of the church some things were taught to be true, though not yet defined,

This is true.

and when formally defined some have turned out to be true and some have not.

Like what kind of things?

Therefore, are we as Catholics at times believing some things to be true when they really are not (i.e. limbo)?

If they are matters that the Church has not touched as far as acceptance or rejection, then the only Catholics who were believing things later taught to be false would have done so on their own initiative–an initiative that is rightly theirs.

In conjunction with this idea before the 1950’s would it have been sinful to reject the notion that Mary was assumed into heaven since this was not formally defined?

Certainly not.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I understand that once the pope declares an article of our faith as doctrine we have the utmost confidence that it is true. However, what do we do when something is taught but not defined as doctrine. For example the Assumption of Mary was taught, but not defined until the 1950’s (I believe). Another example, limbo for the unbaptized was taught, but not defined until Pope Benedict declared it as not true. Here is my dilemma: scripture says that the Holy Spirit will lead the church into all truth, but depending on where you fall in the history of the church some things were taught to be true, though not yet defined, and when formally defined some have turned out to be true and some have not. Therefore, are we as Catholics at times believing some things to be true when they really are not (i.e. limbo)? In other words I am having difficulty with what scripture promises and what has actually happened over the course of Catholic history. Since I believe in the magisterium there must be some answer to all of this which would clear up my confusion. In conjunction with this idea before the 1950’s would it have been sinful to reject the notion that Mary was assumed into heaven since this was not formally defined?

Maybe your question is about what I see called development of dogma.
Here’s my take. The faithful very very likely already believed these things before they were defined formally as dogma. The dogma most likely did not pop out of the sky.
So, sure there may have been those who did not believe these things.
But, since it was not dogma for them to believe them, how can they be sinning?
The catholic church is pretty smart in the sense they don’t really have a long list of things like they are portrayed having to, that one must absolutely believe.

 

[StrawberryJam]

“Ermm…I am not aware of anything from Pope Benedict declaring limbo as “not true” or rejecting it.”

I think it falls under what you all call theological speculation. Not dogma for sure.
Ideas people had many believing were truth, but were merely in fact just speculations of theologians, who later decided it was not worth much to make a case of, or they would have by now.

 

[passus]

“Ermm…I am not aware of anything from Pope Benedict declaring limbo as “not true” or rejecting it.”

I think it falls under what you all call theological speculation. Not dogma for sure.
Ideas people had many believing were truth, but were merely in fact just speculations of theologians, who later decided it was not worth much to make a case of, or they would have by now.

No, the OP mentioned a “declaration,” which is different than speculation. I’m aware of a lot of speculation on the topic of limbo and some strong statements here and there, but never any declarations.

 

[StrawberryJam]

No, the OP mentioned a “declaration,” which is different than speculation. I’m aware of a lot of speculation on the topic of limbo and some strong statements here and there, but never any declarations.

Okay.
I know what dogma means.
I know what doctrine means.
I know what theological speculation means.
Tell me what you consider a good definition of declarations.
And, I still believe the limbo subject fell under theological speculation if I am correct. So much is under that category really.

 

[passus]

Okay.
I know what dogma means.
I know what doctrine means.
I know what theological speculation means.
Tell me what you consider a good definition of declarations.
And, I still believe the limbo subject fell under theological speculation if I am correct. So much is under that category really.

You’ll recall I wasn’t the first person to use the word “declaration.”

Anyway, a declaration is what pronounces or promulgates a dogma or doctrine.

Yes, a lot of stuff is theological speculation including infant limbo.

 

[Evan]

Ermm…I am not aware of anything from Pope Benedict declaring limbo as “not true” or rejecting it.

I think the reference is to the document Hope of Salvation for Infants which contains this conclusion in paragraph 41:

Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture

It says, there may be a Limbo, as we thought all long. Or there may not be, which we left open all along. The teaching on Limbo has not changed, it may or may not exist.

 

[imkingdad]

Here is my dilemma: scripture says that the Holy Spirit will lead the church into all truth, but depending on where you fall in the history of the church some things were taught to be true, though not yet defined, and when formally defined some have turned out to be true and some have not. Therefore, are we as Catholics at times believing some things to be true when they really are not (i.e. limbo)? In other words I am having difficulty with what scripture promises and what has actually happened over the course of Catholic history. Since I believe in the magisterium there must be some answer to all of this which would clear up my confusion. In conjunction with this idea before the 1950’s would it have been sinful to reject the notion that Mary was assumed into heaven since this was not formally defined?

#1 the journey of the Church is not yet over, as knowledge grows, a better understanding follows.

#2 not all that is taught ( as pointed out by the others) is required to be held by any & all Catholics.

#3 terminology must be taking in context with the times, places, persons, events, and in conjunction with (20/20) Historical hindsight. Many matters & causes of confusion stem from semantics & a lack of the previous context factors.

the term all or everyone means different things depending upon the aforementioned criteria.

That is why we have a Church & magisterium and 2000 yrs of History & Tradition to draw upon as well as Scripture.

#4 all of mankind, from the beginning of time until the end could not even begin to fathom the emmensity of God’s Knowledge much less expect to contain even the most infinitesimal amount of it within the confines of out finite minds.

I guess that’s where Faith & Hope come into finer focus. Coupled with God’s Charity, His Love & Grace & Mercy, we are able to grasp enough to save ourselves and perhaps others.

vivat Jesus

 

[KGM]

I guess my ultimate problem with limbo is this: it is taught as truth which can be very confusing to those who do not understand that in order for something to be truly true it must be officially defined. But then at the same time things that are truly true, like the Assumption, have been believed before being defined and in hindsight were ‘safe’ to believe in spite of the fact that it was not officially defined. Granted, the Assumption is an apostolic Tradition and therefore perhaps held more weight. This is a very important distinction I suppose.

Additionally, I don’t think we should have the liberty to believe in some theological speculation if we choose or not believe if we choose. It would seem that if we do believe say in limbo we ought to have a substantial reason to believe and not just that we believe because we have a good feeling about it. What harm is there in not believing something to be true (even if it turns out to be true). When ‘theories’ filter down to the laity as truth it seems there is something very wrong with this!

I am less concerned for myself about this than I am for those whose faith in the Church is shaky for one reason or another. The confusion which ensues due to what originated as theological speculation is the exit door for many Catholics. I have in-laws who have been in and out of the Church several times and are about to leave again! Not because of limbo necessarily but because of some theological teachings of St. Augustine in The City of God which supposedly led to antisemitism in the Church (something called replacement theology). They see the harm done by this and are ready to take flight. I am disappointed that they do not stick it out and make the effort to understand it better (which I am currently doing). So to a degree it can be said ‘shame on them’, but at the same time it would be a big help if someone in the church (who had a strong biblical background as well as a deep understanding of the Church) were bold enough to stand up and speak out against specific people in the Church whose theologies have been misleading. In fact if anyone knows of anyone who has spoken out against Augustine (and others for that matter) on this subject of replacement theology and antisemitism I would greatly appreciate any help.