J
janeway529
Guest
What’s the difference between these terms?
It is a philosophical question, and a good part of it starts with a definition of the term.Perhaps a philosophical question: What’s the difference between discipline and the lack of it?
In managerial training, discipline is equivalent to punishment so I try to be careful in how I use the term.
If this discipline (low tones, etc.) is something that can be changed, then do we have a changing doctrine as well? What else would a casual reader of this “doctrine” conclude? The rite was instituted so that parts indeed be pronounced in low and high tones.And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he can not easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit, that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.
The casual reader, if they are lacking in education about the Faith, would go off half-cocked. Not unlike some have, of recent memory.And then there is the apostolic discipline {apostolica disciplina) as described in the document from Trent Session 22 on Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass (DOCTRINA DE SACRIFICIO MISSÆ):
If this discipline (low tones, etc.) is something that can be changed, then do we have a changing doctrine as well? What else would a casual reader of this “doctrine” conclude? The rite was instituted so that parts indeed be pronounced in low and high tones.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.htmlI asked three different Catholic priests and did not get a definite answer.
Archpriest John W. Morris
The Apostolic Constitution appears to leave open whether the Blessed Virgin died or not, although it does state this:44…by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
- However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ’s faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.
966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."506 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
While the Church does not state, specifically, that she died, “that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son” would suggest that she did.In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.507
The Church is silent on this. We are free to believe Mary died or did not die before she was assumed.I do not know where else to post this, so forgive me if it is irrelevant to this thread.
First of all I am an Eastern Orthodox Priest.
When I was teaching my people about the Assumption of Mary, I was asked if the Catholics believe that Mary died?
The Orthodox doctrine is that Mary died and was buried in the presence of all the Apostles except St. Thomas. He arrived in Jerusalem 3 days later and asked to see the body of the Blessed Virgin. They opened her tomb and found it empty. They they saw a vision of Mary ascending body and soul to Heaven. Thus Orthodox believe in the bodily assumption of the Mother of God after her death.
I asked three different Catholic priests and did not get a definite answer.
Archpriest John W. Morris
DogmaWhat’s the difference between these terms?
It is obvious to me that Rome at least allows for the Eastern Orthodox interpretation. The Menaion, which is a set of 12 book of the services for the feast days for each month, published by the Melkites is a translation from the same Arabic language Menaion used by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. It is the version of the Menaion that I use in my parish. The texts for the feast of the Assumption in the Menaion tell the story of her death and assumption into Heaven. The icon for the feast shows her lying in the tomb with Our Lord standing above her holding her as His blessed Mother held Him when He was an infant. Since the Melkites are in Communion with Rome, I would assume that since their beliefs are identical to our beliefs concerning the Assumption that our beliefs are acceptable to Rome.The Church is silent on this. We are free to believe Mary died or did not die before she was assumed.
Personally, I believe she did die first based on the testimony of some of the Church Fathers.
I agree with you. The fact the Church allows us to believe either way means your interpretation cannot be said to be wrong. Your interpretation does not contradict the teaching of Rome because there is no teaching on Mary’s death or no death.It is obvious to me that Rome at least allows for the Eastern Orthodox interpretation. The Menaion, which is a set of 12 book of the services for the feast days for each month, published by the Melkites is a translation from the same Arabic language Menaion used by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. It is the version of the Menaion that I use in my parish. The texts for the feast of the Assumption in the Menaion tell the story of her death and assumption into Heaven. The icon for the feast shows her lying in the tomb with Our Lord standing above her holding her as His blessed Mother held Him when He was an infant. Since the Melkites are in Communion with Rome, I would assume that since their beliefs are identical to our beliefs concerning the Assumption that our beliefs are acceptable to Rome.
Archpriest John W. Morris
So, doctrines (non-infallible) and disciplines can change through the advancement of understandings through theology and the sciences? For example, the death penalty, funerals for those who commit suicide, and married clergy.Dogma
A dogma is 1) a divinely revealed truth which 2) has been proclaimed as such by the infallible teaching authority of the Church.
Doctrine
- A dogma must be found explicitly or implicitly in the deposit of faith given to the Church by Jesus in Sacred Scripture and/or Sacred Tradition.
- A dogma must be infallibly taught by the Church as divinely revealed.
All dogmas are infallibly taught as divinely revealed truths, but not all infallibly defined truths are taught as divinely revealed. In the latter case, the infallibly taught truth would not be considered a dogma.
A doctrine is a way of understanding divine revelation and which is taught authoritatively by the Magisterium of the Church. Doctrine may be defined either infallibly or non-infallibly. All dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas.
Discipline
A discipline is a rule of the Church which requires obedience due to the authority given to the Church by Jesus. Disciplines may be changed during the course of history based upon the needs of the Church. Examples of Church disciplines include fasting during Lent and the celibacy of priests in the Latin rite.
Devotion
A devotion is a religious exercise or practice other than the regular corporate worship of a congregation. Devotions directed toward God are rightly called worship while devotions directed toward saints are classified as veneration.
Doctrines cannot change. They may be explained more clearly but do not change.So, doctrines (non-infallible) and disciplines can change through the advancement of understandings through theology and the sciences? For example, the death penalty, funerals for those who commit suicide, and married clergy.
Then how does one know what’s doctrine then? As I showed earlier it seems the “doctrines” of Trent have maybe not been changed but severely undermined. Low tones in Mass, for example.Doctrines cannot change. They may be explained more clearly but do not change.
Disciplines can change.
Eastern Orthodox agree. That is why I left the Episcopal Church and became Orthodox. A pressure group can organize a political style campaign and successfully pass a vote to change the doctrine of the Episcopal and most Protestant Churches at their national conventions. I was a delegate to the convention of Texas that voted to ordain women. I am sure that the lay majority were very competent to run the financial affairs of their parish, but they were not educated in theology and were not competent to make a decision on a doctrinal matter. Our national convention of clergy and laity has no authority over doctrine, but deals exclusively with finances and other temporal matters, and, of course, the election of new Bishops, but no council or individual can change the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church. If there is a doctrinal controversy, the Bishops make the decision meeting in council. However, they cannot introduce new doctrine or change the doctrine or moral teachings of the Church.Doctrines cannot change. They may be explained more clearly but do not change.
Disciplines can change.
Doctrines (beliefs) are based on the teachings of Christ, on truth revealed to us by God.Then how does one know what’s doctrine then? As I showed earlier it seems the “doctrines” of Trent have maybe not been changed but severely undermined. Low tones in Mass, for example.
Then the clearly marked doctrines of Trent are not really doctrines, but can be twisted into changeable discipline? Where has this been revealed? Just trying to clarify things a bit.Doctrines (beliefs) are based on the teachings of Christ, on truth revealed to us by God.
Low tones at Mass are not revealed truth.
-Tim-