Dogma - what is the meaning today

[Jehoshua]

Ive read a report from someone now in the consecrated life that his catechist for first communion, a nun in the early seventies, used the word “mother” in reference to God.

I would not be at all surprised if out there somewhere was a priest who denied the real presence and that there are catechists who spread the heresy of eucharistic memorialism (that its merely symbolic). Considering the whole “praise” dance phenomena and other desecrations of the liturgy its actually more likely than not.

Orthopraxy begets Orthodoxy, and heteropraxy signals heresy.

 

[dmorgan]

Ive read a report from someone now in the consecrated life that his catechist for first communion, a nun in the early seventies, used the word “mother” in reference to God.

I would not be at all surprised if out there somewhere was a priest who denied the real presence and that there are catechists who spread the heresy of eucharistic memorialism (that its merely symbolic). Considering the whole “praise” dance phenomena and other desecrations of the liturgy its actually more likely than not.

Orthopraxy begets Orthodoxy, and heteropraxy signals heresy.

Agreed!!!:
The Faithful need to WAKE UP and realize that The Church began with Christ, not with Vatican II, and everything that came before Vatican II in the form of Dogma is still applicable today. Many would do well to research our history and learn what has been left out (removed) from the Faith in the last forty years. The heresy and modernism will only stop when devout Catholics start to re-establish the Faith and demand that our Priests and Bishops follow the Faith. [eidted by moderator] We all need to use the gift of e-mail and the internet to fill the in boxes of our Bishops, the USCCB, and the Vatican requesting that Bishops and Priests practice the TRUE Faith as handed down through the centuries. It is time for a house cleaning and I pray daily that God will start it soon, before any more souls are lost to heretical teaching and actions on the part of our Priests and Bishops.

 

[OraLabora]

No. It does not apply to one teaching and frankly though some teachers may make mistakes because they do not properly understand I do not believe any RCIA instructor has denied the Real Presence. That’s hearsay unless you can provide proof.

I have heard of an RCIA instructor denying the Real Presence, sadly. A fellow oblate witnessed to that and shared it at an oblate’s retreat not so long ago where he gave a talk. The person relating this was a very reliable source, and was host of a very traditional Catholic radio show in Quebec. The Church in Quebec has become very, very liberal alas.

My point was that poorly catechized Catholics can be forgiven if they were taught error. Not every Catholic has an IQ over 100 and is able to discern by him or her self. If such a person is poorly catechized, and as a result persists in error, then that person is invincibly ignorant and the fault lies on the shoulders of the errant teacher.

 

[Jehoshua]

I agree that those who have been taught error by their teachers and have not heard or are unaware in its entirely the truth of which the heretical teaching is a deviation of, may be under the auspices of invincible ignorance. In this case then the blame goes to the teacher who as christ said is better off having a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the sea.

In this i concur with Ora Labora

However if that person then hears the truth and becomes aware of it and persists in error knowing the truth and that that truth is the authoritative teaching of the church, then that invincible ignorance goes up in smoke because he is now aware of the true teaching of the Catholic Church and is persisting in error despite knowing at this point that he is contrary to what the Church teaches.

 

[Vince1022]

Unless a Catholic was isolated and brought up catechised in false teachings (and really had no clue what the Church actually taught) then invincible ignorance does not apply to Catholics.

Of course. That’s what the Church teaches.

 

[Vince1022]

No. It does not apply to one teaching and frankly though some teachers may make mistakes because they do not properly understand I do not believe any RCIA instructor has denied the Real Presence. That’s hearsay unless you can provide proof.

Ditto (and Amen)

 

[OraLabora]

However if that person then hears the truth and becomes aware of it and persists in error knowing the truth and that that truth is the authoritative teaching of the church, then that invincible ignorance goes up in smoke because he is now aware of the true teaching of the Catholic Church and is persisting in error despite knowing at this point that he is contrary to what the Church teaches.

Assuming the person has the intellect to make this discernment.

On the other hand it is probably easier for someone with a child-like faith to accept dogma than someone like me who thinks too hard!

 

[Robert_Burns]

Robert the questioning of Dogmas is cloaked in the same errancy as all other modernist arguments, mainly “I can make up my own mind/That was then, this is now” lie that many previous Popes have warned us about for the past 200 years. Just as ambiguities in the Wording of the documents of V-II allowed many to deviate from the documents, the modernists will always try to question Dogma since by creating doubt or perverting meanings they can destroy the faith. The final goal of these heretics is the destruction of the Church. The sooner that Catholics of all stripes wake up and realize this, the sooner we can assist the Holy Father and the devout clergy that remains to help restore Christ’s Church.

I agree.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Assuming the person has the intellect to make this discernment.

On the other hand it is probably easier for someone with a child-like faith to accept dogma than someone like me who thinks too hard!

Robert : All great points so let me interject something else into the equasion that is often overlooked - how well we excel in the the practise of Our Religion. Oftentimes when I see people make statements such as " Some people have a low IQ and that simply makes me cringe. Why? Because I see such great Saints as St Bernadette of Lourdes. Lets face it - in human terms she was for all intents and purposes ignorant and unlearned. And yet the Mother of GOD chose to visit her. Can you grasp the significance of that? It isnt so much what we know that gets us into trouble IMO. I think its a failure to act on that which we do know. We know to pray. Do we? We know to confess our Sins. Do we? And it seems that the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost come in abundance to those who do so with a fidelity to and a love for GOD regardless of circumstances. I think that we need to know our faith , indeed , I dont want to lessen the importance of that - but we need to in addition put as much effort we put in learning our Faith into the actual practice of our faith as well. IMO - the two go hand in hand.

Pax

 

[Modelsim]

Its very simple. A Catholic MUST NOT doubt or deny a dogma. That would be heresy.

This is not the case as outlined by then Cardinal Ratzigner in “DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI.”

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

Certain reformable doctrines are open to disagreement where the person who disagrees is considered to have an erroneous thought but is still in full communion. One example I would argue would fit into this category would be Cardinal Dulles with regard to the death penalty.

Read the link and it will explain the different levels of doctrines.

 

[Cecilianus]

I agree with most of what you say except for this: "Due to our imperfection words could mean different things in different times. " Isnt that the Entire reason for the Guidance of the Holy Ghost from the Chair of St Peter? So that Truth in the time of Jesus is the same Truth today? Isnt that a form of Hegelianism?

If it is rude of me to jump in an answer instead of waiting for Laszlo to respond first, then my apologies and somebody please correct me. I’m not quite sure what the etiquette is here - and whenever I have something to say I’m usually itching to say it.

Since words are signs of human origin subject to the law of mutability (just look at the way the English language has changed since Beowulf was written, for example), couldn’t it make sense that if words today have different implications and connotations than they used to, it would aid clarity to explain the dogma in different words, provided that the meaning is the same?

To give you a concrete example - since I’m sure we’re all used to this rather meaningless baloney about how the Church’s dogmatic definitions are no longer “relevant” to the modern world (just look at a relatively recent controversial speech by Terrence Tilley, for example) - take the word “nature”. St. Cyril of Alexandria was famous for his Christological formula “one incarnate nature of God the Word”. At the time, “nature” was not a technical term with the meaning it would take at the Council of Chalcedon. St. Cyril has always been regarded as orthodox, and both the Catholic Church and committees of representatives of the Orthodox Churches have acknowledged that the Christology held today by the Copts and Armenians is unobjectionable, and the Copts and Armenians today call themselves “miaphysites” and insist that monophysitism is a heresy (though they still regard Chalcedon as heretical, which is an obstacle to union).

In other words, both formulations - that of St. Cyril and that of Chalcedon - are orthodox, since the word “nature” was being used differently in each.

One might take as another example the word “energy” in Greek theology (the word has no Latin equivalent). In common Greek parlance (and in the writings of St. Basil the Great), it simply means the action or effect of something. A thousand years later in the writings of St. Gregory Palamas and the dogmatic definitions of the local Synod of Blachernae in 1351, it had come to have a quite definite technical meaning, as something quite similar to the Latin gratia increata - not quite the same thing.

So while Truth never changes, one does have to look at the historical context in which a text was written to see what the words meant at the time.

 

[Cecilianus]

Here’s my thoughts on the OP’s question:

Truth is truth, and what the Church as taught must be accepted with the obedience of faith, including doctrines which are taught by the ordinary Magisterium (and hence are not de fide).

However, any formulation of a doctrine usually employs some sort of philosophical baggage or assumed terminology, and it is frequently possible to express the same content of the dogma in different terms, without necessarily having the same philosophical presuppositions.

For example, since 1054 all of the Ecumenical Councils have been held in the West, and the dogmas they defined all used Latin terminology coming from the Aristotelian philosophical tradition, e.g. “transubstantiation”. And any look at a Baltimore Catechism will show all sorts of references to the “matter” and "form’ of sacraments. Yet the Church has never taught that anyone is bound by faith to accept Aristotle’s physics or metaphysics, and many people (such as myself) believe that modern science and philosophy have permanently devastated Aristotle’s system. That the explanations of dogmas should be rephrased following Romanticism, critical philosophy, phenomenology, personalism, or Heidegger is a good and necessary thing. I cannot accept the claim of disgruntled Thomists that every non-Scholastic philosophy is a heresy. I do not believe that John Paul II was committing a heresy with the Theology of the Body (he was Pope, after all!), yet it is a stark departure from the dry Thomistic dismissal of the issue with the catchphrase about the primary and secondary purposes of marriage.

Eastern and Oriental Christians also have our own theological traditions and like to phrase dogmas using our own words coming from the Greek language (rather than from the Latin). The meaning or content is the same, but the phrasing is different - hence the pseudodisputes over questions like divine grace, Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception.

I suspect, however, that the wave of dissent running through the Church today actually has more to do with real heresy than with legitimate theological reformulation. The meaning can never change - different aspects can be emphasized and the underlying metaphysical system can be different, but the Faith, being true, cannot be denied.

 

[Vince1022]

Assuming the person has the intellect to make this discernment.

On the other hand it is probably easier for someone with a child-like faith to accept dogma than someone like me who thinks too hard!

All Catholics accept this dogma regardless of their age or intellectual capacity.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Here’s my thoughts on the OP’s question:

Truth is truth, and what the Church as taught must be accepted with the obedience of faith, including doctrines which are taught by the ordinary Magisterium (and hence are not de fide).

However, any formulation of a doctrine usually employs some sort of philosophical baggage or assumed terminology, and it is frequently possible to express the same content of the dogma in different terms, without necessarily having the same philosophical presuppositions.

For example, since 1054 all of the Ecumenical Councils have been held in the West, and the dogmas they defined all used Latin terminology coming from the Aristotelian philosophical tradition, e.g. “transubstantiation”. And any look at a Baltimore Catechism will show all sorts of references to the “matter” and "form’ of sacraments. Yet the Church has never taught that anyone is bound by faith to accept Aristotle’s physics or metaphysics, and many people (such as myself) believe that modern science and philosophy have permanently devastated Aristotle’s system. That the explanations of dogmas should be rephrased following Romanticism, critical philosophy, phenomenology, personalism, or Heidegger is a good and necessary thing. I cannot accept the claim of disgruntled Thomists that every non-Scholastic philosophy is a heresy. I do not believe that John Paul II was committing a heresy with the Theology of the Body (he was Pope, after all!), yet it is a stark departure from the dry Thomistic dismissal of the issue with the catchphrase about the primary and secondary purposes of marriage.

Eastern and Oriental Christians also have our own theological traditions and like to phrase dogmas using our own words coming from the Greek language (rather than from the Latin). The meaning or content is the same, but the phrasing is different - hence the pseudodisputes over questions like divine grace, Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception.

I suspect, however, that the wave of dissent running through the Church today actually has more to do with real heresy than with legitimate theological reformulation. The meaning can never change - different aspects can be emphasized and the underlying metaphysical system can be different, but the Faith, being true, cannot be denied.

Well that is an interesting way of approaching that question - however - St Thomas Aquinas (Thomistic philosophic Bent) interpretations have generally been rooted in Aristotle’s system just as St Augustine leaned more to Plato’s System and generally they approach theological points from, those perspectives but the Magisterium when appropriate has always clarified - and as to the fact that the last 12 Ecumenical Councils have been Held in the West - although True - the same Holy Ghost guided all 20.

My problem with several of the things we see going on today isnt in regards to minor squabbles over the philosophic understanding of the same core set of Truths - but rather a Hegelian philosopic approach that calls into question the Core set of Truths itself by attempting to interject the false Tenets of Hegel - that all Truth is merely generational.

Thats the danger I see.

 

[Cecilianus]

Well that is an interesting way of approaching that question - however - St Thomas Aquinas (Thomistic philosophic Bent) interpretations have generally been rooted in Aristotle’s system just as St Augustine leaned more to Plato’s System and generally they approach theological points from, those perspectives but the Magisterium when appropriate has always clarified - and as to the fact that the last 12 Ecumenical Councils have been Held in the West - although True - the same Holy Ghost guided all 20.

My problem with several of the things we see going on today isnt in regards to minor squabbles over the philosophic understanding of the same core set of Truths - but rather a Hegelian philosopic approach that calls into question the Core set of Truths itself by attempting to interject the false Tenets of Hegel - that all Truth is merely generational.

Thats the danger I see.

I think that problem is more along the lines of temporal relativism - we believe what we believe now and the Church has to get in touch with the modern world - rather than Hegel’s dialectical development of truth, which I think follows fairly well the way the Church teaching actually does develop. (We propose a statement as part of the Faith [thesis], a heresy exaggerates one aspect of that statement [antithesis], and an Ecumenical Council is called to resolve the question - synthesis. It’s not the same as Hegel’s dialectic, but it can still be phrased dialectically. Fair enough?)

 

[Robert_Burns]

I think that problem is more along the lines of temporal relativism - we believe what we believe now and the Church has to get in touch with the modern world - rather than Hegel’s dialectical development of truth, which I think follows fairly well the way the Church teaching actually does develop. (We propose a statement as part of the Faith [thesis], a heresy exaggerates one aspect of that statement [antithesis], and an Ecumenical Council is called to resolve the question - synthesis. It’s not the same as Hegel’s dialectic, but it can still be phrased dialectically. Fair enough?)

Well I think its the opposite. I believe that Temporal relativism has its roots in the Hegelian Dialectic - as Truth doesnt need to be “developed” To me that smacks of a denial of the Sovereignty of GOD and his relevation to man and instead puts the power to dicern Truth under the control of Man himself. Certainly Marxism which spawn due to Hegel fully embraced the tenets and used them to champion a Godless society wheere the State itself decided what was and what was not true.

The Deposit of Faith given by Our Lord was complete once St John the Evangelist died - and it has always been in the possession of the Church down through the ages protected by the Holy Ghost - and the Church herself has at times refined it in answering defections - but never has it had to “develope it” On that , we disagree.

Pax

 

[dmorgan]

From Humani Generis Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII 1950

"14. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

1. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that his can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.
2. It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.
3. Hence to neglect, or to reject,or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning."

Read the rest at Papal encyclicals.net

 

[Cecilianus]

Lest this paragraph be taken as an unqualified endorsement of Thomism as the only valid expression of the Church’s philosophy, let me make the following points:

(1) The people it condemns are trying to “strip dogma of the elements which they hold to be extrinisic to divine revelation” - which sounds something like Luke Timothy Johnson’s “creedal Christianity”. This isn’t what I’m suggesting we do; we are obliged accept everything the Church teaches in whatever formulation, even if we wish to phrase the doctrines according to a different tradition or purify it of metaphysical errors. This does not mean it is heretical to adapt modern philosophy or the Greek theological tradition to theological discourse.

(2) The document was aimed at Modernists trying to accomodate Catholic teaching to Protestant errors - since it wasn’t addressed to the Christians of the East, it should not be taken as a condemnation of them. Pius was only speaking to the Roman Church in this document; Eastern Christians have never been bound to the phrasing (only to the meaning) of Western dogmatic synods. A simple reason for this is that we used the Greek language in our theology, and all of the dogmatic definitions from Lateran on were in Latin - and Latin does not always translate correctly into Greek and vice versa.

(3) The Latin formulation of the Faith is just as perfectly sufficient as the Greek - and the two complement each other. The Scholastic expression of the Faith is perfectly adequate IF Scholastic philosophy is true. Apophatic mysteries really can be adequately expressed in cataphatic language.

From Humani Generis Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII 1950

"14. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

1. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that his can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.
2. It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.
3. Hence to neglect, or to reject,or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning."

Read the rest at Papal encyclicals.net

 

[Ignatius]

The reason I pose this question lies in the fact that I see people in the forum questioning defined Dogmas as if they are up for debate.

Since when are Catholic allowed to doubt or deny defined Dogmas?

Dogma is the established doctrine held by The Church. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from, by the faithful.

 

[Vince1022]

Dogma is the established doctrine held by The Church. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from, by the faithful.

Is there a clear list of dogma, as you define it, in the Catholic Church?