Glaring Hiatus

[Non_Serviam]

But the point of the concept of “development of doctrine” is that it just isn’t that simple.

There isn’t some point at which people wake up in the morning and say “what new thing can I believe today?” There are some fairly dramatic points where new doctrines appear to be invented, such as Augustine’s doctrine of original sin or Luther’s doctrine of justification. And it’s no accident that these doctrines divide Christians and are both highly dubious (actually I’d say that Luther’s doctrine is worse than dubious). But most of the time, what happens is that people follow through the implications (both theoretical and experiential) of what they believe, and find that this has implications they may not have thought of previously. (This is certainly what Augustine thought he was doing, which is one of the things that gets him off the hook a bit in contrast to Luther with his bold claim to have rediscovered the Gospel.)

Edwin

It is just that simple-no excuse was made for it until it got so blatant in recent centuries that one was needed. Distinguishing between doctrine that is clearly stated in the early sources and that which is derived, is a necessary first step to establishing common ground and points of difference.

Beyond that, “development of doctrine” has been abused to wallpaper over any significant difference between the pre- and post-Vatican II Catholic church. “No Salvation Outside the Church” Use the definition in the CCC and claim that “development of doctrine” means there isn’t any conflict with earlier writings. Pius IX on demoncracy and religious liberty vs the CCC? No problem, “development of doctrine” at work-we have a better understanding now compared to the “seed” that existed in Pius’ time.

Black is now the “seed” of white and vice versa.

What has occurred in practice with the increase in popularity of this principle is that the most recent teaching is taken as authoritative and everyone who comes before is “massaged” to fit into that teaching. Rather than the church being shaped by the Apostle’s teaching, more and more the Apostle’s teaching is being shaped by the church.

That isn’t development-that’s revisionism, whether done by me, Luther, Augustine or yourself. And useful discussion can’t occur if it is permitted.

 

[Contarini]

One thing that might shed light on the theology behind the virginity in partu doctrine is this: Catholics believe that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin at her conception. Since the pains of childbirth are a result of the Fall of Man, then Mary would be exempt from these; her virgin womb would stay intact. (Note: that does not mean she felt no pain in her life; it is simply a sign of her Immaculate Conception; labor pains are specifically called out in Genesis 3:16. It’s also a sign of her role as the New Eve, the Mother who obeys God; she is not punished as Eve was for her disobedience.)

I understand that. And while the idea of Jesus being born without pain seems incongruous to me in many ways, I get the logic of it. But without getting physiologically detailed here, doesn’t the in partu virginity imply some kind of teleportation such as is described of the post-Resurrection Jesus? Apart from the problem of anticipating the resurrection and implying that Jesus always had a glorified body, I just don’t find this believable. Not because I don’t believe in miracles, but because if Jesus really just dematerialized in Mary’s womb and rematerialized outside it, this would surely have made it into one of the birth narratives. It would be one of the most dramatic miracles of Jesus’ life, and it seems pretty obvious to me that it’s a later legend and driven by a tendency toward Docetism.

Also, Isaiah 7:14–“Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” The virgin both conceived and bore a son.

I know that this kind of over-interpretation is highly venerable (the rabbis and the early Christians both did it all the time), but I don’t find it convincing as a proof of anything (it’s fine for devotional purposes). For that matter, Isaiah 7:14 in Hebrew doesn’t imply that the “almah” even conceived miraculously. No one seems to have thought of interpreting it that way until Matthew. (In fact, Raymond Brown argued that this points to the historicity of the virginal conception–something was odd about Jesus’ birth, and Matthew went digging in the OT for prophetic parallels rather than the other way round.)

Regarding the “step-brother” theory: Joseph was much older than Mary and it would make sense that he would have already been married at least once by his age.

Well, Joseph’s age is based on the Protoevangelion of James, which I do not consider a reliable source at all. But since he disappears from the story by the time Jesus was grown up, and since it was very common in the ancient world for older men to marry younger women, that part of the legend seems extremely probable.

For the post partum virginity, there are some extra-canonical texts that imply that Mary was a consecrated virgin given to the temple by her parents when she was only 12. The tradition claims that Joseph was married to her simply to be her guardian. I do not know these texts off the top of my head, but I can look them up if you like.

You’re thinking of the Protoevangelion of James–mid-2nd century at the earliest, I believe. I don’t know of any scholars, even conservatives, who think it’s reliable (maybe you can point me to some conservative Catholic or Orthodox scholars who do). It’s pretty much universally agreed to be pious legend and nothing more, though I suppose it is possible that it contains some authentic traditions.

Also, to say Mary was ever-virgin does not in any way reinforce the idea that sex is un-holy. After all, Jesus was a virgin and he is our model. Does that mean that He makes it seem un-holy? Surely not.

Jesus wasn’t married. It’s virginity within marriage that seems to make sex unholy, because sex is normally a part of marriage.

You might look into Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body to better understand the Church’s teaching on virginity and sex and the holiness of both.

I think the Theology of the Body is great. But it isn’t the traditional Catholic understanding. I think it’s a legitimate development (though granted my idea of legitimate development is somewhat looser than the Catholic one), but it’s fairly new in Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[SirThomasMore]

Atticus/Sir Thom: I have found this thread a goldmine. I’m learning so much from the lively give’n take, and am especially grateful that people didn’t mock my bumbling phrasing (which I have twice mentioned since the OP), but that they have graciously been willing to not only provide info, but bounce around other fascinating, very much related concepts/insights. Perhaps for you, being Catholic and a lawyer, none of this is useful (i.e. it’s old hat for you), but for me, a member of the lowly laity (Protestant, no less), it is invaluable to have folks like Contarini and all the others, contribute here (I will be rereading this thread at least 2 more times, bec. there is so much to soak in and ponder); it’s like having my own mini-seminar!:bounce::aok: I’d also cherish whatever ***substance ***you yourself could offer. (Quidnunckism is less than profitable to me.)

I apologize for seeming to ignore your intent. I hope to rectify that.

I do not believe, reading the Epsitles, that Paul was mainly trying to teach basics and correct mistakes in his letters.
That would, in no way, signify it was not doctrine, or that it was not imnportant. We have no idea what Paul actually preached. We only know what is in his letters. For all we know, he DID preach about Mary. It is just as likely, as she was still alive, he didn;t. This also would have been out of respect.

I believe Mary was a virgin. It has been discussed how Jesus entrusted her to John while Jesus was on the cross. That would have been wrong, under Jewish custom, had Jesus had brothers.

I read Anne Rice’s book “Out of Egypt”. It is a fictional account of Christ’s childhood. In it, Joseph explains that how COULD he have relations with Mary knowing what and who had been in her womb? That makes sense to me. Jews were very respectful of holy places. I do not believe, if my wife had carried Jesus in her womb, that I could ever have relations with her, either.

I hope that helpes a little. And again, I apologize.

 

[Contarini]

It is just that simple-no excuse was made for it until it got so blatant in recent centuries that one was needed.

The same is true on both sides. The only “advantage” Protestants have is that they are shameless about being willing to junk centuries of tradition if necessary. But until the 19th century people didn’t generally think in terms of Protestant development. Both sides tried to prove (foolishly) that they were identical with the early Church (though as I said, Protestants had the advantage that they could throw out everything since the NT if they needed to–and they more or less did if they wanted to make the “identical” claim, not that it’s historically convincing even with regard to the NT).

Some kind of theory of development is an absolute necessity for all Christians if we are going to have a shred of historical honesty. That’s one of my big problems with the Orthodox, but it’s really just their cultural conservatism, I think. None of us wanted to come up with a theory of development, which is the truth behind your statement above.

Distinguishing between doctrine that is clearly stated in the early sources and that which is derived, is a necessary first step to establishing common ground and points of difference.

I don’t disagree with that, as long as you recognize that these aren’t two sharply distinct categories but exist on a spectrum. So I’d prefer to reword it to say "historical honesty about how clearly a doctrine we hold today is stated in the early sources. . . "

Beyond that, “development of doctrine” has been abused to wallpaper over any significant difference between the pre- and post-Vatican II Catholic church. “No Salvation Outside the Church” Use the definition in the CCC and claim that “development of doctrine” means there isn’t any conflict with earlier writings. Pius IX on demoncracy and religious liberty vs the CCC? No problem, “development of doctrine” at work-we have a better understanding now compared to the “seed” that existed in Pius’ time.

Black is now the “seed” of white and vice versa.

I agree that the idea is misused–but you’re misstating the case a bit. The argument isn’t so much that Benedict’s Unam Sanctam is the seed of the “non-Catholics are in some way members of the Church” theory, but that (for instance) Rome’s and Augustine’s insistence (against Cyprian and later the Donatists) on the validity of heretical baptism is the seed, and that this longstanding trajectory within Catholicism is part of the context within which Unam Sanctam should be interpreted.

It is frustrating that contemporary RCs are unwilling to admit that Benedict and the Fathers of Florence clearly didn’t intend their words to be interpreted as Vatican II interprets them. But the proper response to this is not to reject the idea of doctrinal development altogether. Going after doctrinal development is a bad idea, because historical continuity is an essential in Christianity and reconstruction of primitive Christianity is impossible. Therefore, either we have some doctrine of development or we give up on Christianity altogether. And that really *is *that simple.

What has occurred in practice with the increase in popularity of this principle is that the most recent teaching is taken as authoritative and everyone who comes before is “massaged” to fit into that teaching. Rather than the church being shaped by the Apostle’s teaching, more and more the Apostle’s teaching is being shaped by the church.

Really? You think, as a Protestant, that post-Vatican-II Catholicism is less like the teaching of the Apostles than Tridentine Catholicism?

Part of development is a continual “ressourcement,” returning to the sources of the Faith for renewal. Take away development, and it seems to me that your only choices are a hide-bound conservatism which blindly insists that whatever we believe today must have been believed by the Apostles, or a primitivism that continually reinvents the wheel. Since I think both of these positions are completely untenable (the first is historically dishonest and the second is nonsense), I think that development is a necessary doctrine if we are going to be Christians at all.

That isn’t development-that’s revisionism, whether done by me, Luther, Augustine or yourself. And useful discussion can’t occur if it is permitted.

Fair enough–it seems as if you have an idea of what legitimate development looks like, and think that Catholics are abusing this. That’s constructive. So what does legitimate development look like and how does one distinguish it from “revisionism”?

Edwin

 

[Radical]

The same is true on both sides. The only “advantage” Protestants have is that they are shameless about being willing to junk centuries of tradition if necessary.

Well let’s be fair, why should tradition be viewed as being sacrosanct? If the tradition in question looks to be nothing more than the product of pious imagination, why should it be imposed on all subsequent Christians and why is junking it (or at least downgrading it to “optional”) not a good step? Holding that it can only be developed, but not junked altogether seems unwarranted. There is plenty in the history of those ECFs that would call into question their ability to make the right decision in all cases.

It is frustrating that contemporary RCs are unwilling to admit that Benedict and the Fathers of Florence clearly didn’t intend their words to be interpreted as Vatican II interprets them. But the proper response to this is not to reject the idea of doctrinal development altogether. Going after doctrinal development is a bad idea, because historical continuity is an essential in Christianity and reconstruction of primitive Christianity is impossible.

Perfection is impossible. As such, it is impossible to reconstruct primitive Christianity with absolute accuracy and from all indications it is impossible to develop doctrine with absolute infallibility. So why is the former impossibility worse than the latter impossibility? Said another way, why is the “we’ll be as true to the original as we can be approach” worse than the “We’ll be as true to God’s will in the development of doctrine as we can approach?” Frankly, I think we should pursue the former and utilize the latter when the original is lacking and development is a necessity….and I see nothing in the Catholic doctrines of Mary that should be classified as a necessity.

Part of development is a continual “ressourcement,” returning to the sources of the Faith for renewal. Take away development, and it seems to me that your only choices are a hide-bound conservatism which blindly insists that whatever we believe today must have been believed by the Apostles, or a primitivism that continually reinvents the wheel. Since I think both of these positions are completely untenable (the first is historically dishonest and the second is nonsense), I think that development is a necessary doctrine if we are going to be Christians at all.

I don’t see the “nonsense” unless one declares that the reinvented wheel is not just the best we can do, but is absolutely infallible. Likewise, development gets into trouble as soon as it starts claiming that the product is w/o error and mandatory. There are so many things/areas where the Church can do nothing but admit, “Hey, we are flawed, very flawed and we will try to do a better job of it and get it right next time (with God’s help).” Why can’t doctrine fall into and be one of those areas? Perhaps your idea of doctrinal development includes that type of admission.

Cheers.

 

[Contarini]

Well let’s be fair, why should tradition be viewed as being sacrosanct?

Not every tradition should be. But Tradition certainly should be. The only way we have Christianity at all is by Tradition–by a continuous process of handing down the Faith from one generation to another. If that process is broken to the point that we have to reconstruct the Faith, then we no longer have historic Christianity at all but a nice religion of our own invention.

If the tradition in question looks to be nothing more than the product of pious imagination, why should it be imposed on all subsequent Christians

Looks to whom? Why should a gaggle of modern Christians, themselves imprisoned by their own cultural prejudices, have the awe-inspiring authority to decide that what has been thought to be Sacred Tradition is really just “the product of pious imagination”?

If such a decision is ever to be made, it must be made by a body that can speak for the Church as a whole and stands in unbroken continuity with the Faith up to this point. So, for instance, I believe in women’s ordination, but I don’t think we Anglicans had the authority to decide that women could be ordained. I might be wrong–the majority of Anglicans in the West might be wrong.

There is plenty in the history of those ECFs that would call into question their ability to make the right decision in all cases.

Straw man. We aren’t talking about individual Fathers but about the mind of the Church as a whole.

Perfection is impossible. As such, it is impossible to reconstruct primitive Christianity with absolute accuracy and from all indications it is impossible to develop doctrine with absolute infallibility.

The former is obviously true. The latter is not, in my opinion. Not if we define “absolute infallibility” as refraining from sanctioning any developments that violate the Faith as it has been handed down. It is not obvious that either the Roman Communion or the Orthodox have violated the integrity of the Faith.

We know that the Holy Spirit has been promised to lead us into all truth. There is no plausible reason to believe that the Holy Spirit has guided infallibly any of the primitivist reconstruction attempts–they all leave out way too much. It is to my mind quite plausible that the Holy Spirit might have preserved the truth either in the Roman Communion or in the Eastern Communion. I recognize that your mileage may differ, and I have no absolute proof that I’m right and you are wrong in our respective evaluations. But I have two considerations to offer:

1. The language of the Holy Spirit’s guidance both in the New Testament and in Tradition is always of preservation and not of reconstruction. It’s true that in the Old Testament Israel apostasized and repented–but it was able to do this because there was genuine continuity (the Davidic kingship in the South, and the “schools of prophets” in the North). Furthermore, the OT was a time of continuing revelation. It’s true that the New Testament speaks of “falling away” and warns against “false teachers,” but always in a manner that assumes there will be a remnant who will preserve the Faith. The idea that you can reconstruct the Faith when it has been lost is in my opinion a desperate expedient to justify the arrogant pretense that a sect of modern Christians knows better than the historic Church.
2. Even excluding supernatural considerations, it’s much easier to preserve than to reconstruct.

Said another way, why is the “we’ll be as true to the original as we can be approach” worse than the “We’ll be as true to God’s will in the development of doctrine as we can approach?”

Because the latter allows our interpretation of the original to be shaped and corrected by the perspectives of previous generations. So yes, I think this approach (basically the Anglican approach) is relatively better. But the best of all would be to have the promise of the Holy Spirit that there will always be a Church holding fast to the Faith once delivered to the saints and not admitting any developments incompatible with that Faith. And that is what both RC’s and Orthodox claim.

I don’t see the “nonsense” unless one declares that the reinvented wheel is not just the best we can do, but is absolutely infallible.

Fair enough. Maybe your position isn’t nonsense–it just doesn’t seem worth the trouble.

Likewise, development gets into trouble as soon as it starts claiming that the product is w/o error and mandatory.

Why are you so sure this is impossible?

There are so many things/areas where the Church can do nothing but admit, “Hey, we are flawed, very flawed and we will try to do a better job of it and get it right next time (with God’s help).” Why can’t doctrine fall into and be one of those areas?

Indeed, I have argued this for a long time against RCs. I think it can. But I’m not sure that it has to be. It might also be that God preserves the Faith even in the midst of our sins, because as long as we have the Faith whole and entire we have something to come back to. Put it another way: if I teach one thing and live another, I have a standard to which to return. If I no longer have the right teaching, then what am I going to return to?

Furthermore (and this is what I would maintain as an Anglican), there is a difference between getting some doctrines wrong and losing the Faith in such a way that we have to put it back together again.

In short, what I would claim is that reinventing the wheel is never necessary, but one part of the Church may certainly fall into error, and the Church as a whole may need to look back to previous ages (principally of course Holy Scripture) to correct our perspective when we have fallen into a one-sided emphasis.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

Never ceases to amaze me the fundamentalist knee-jerk reactions to Mary. They, not Catholics, seem to be the ones obsessed with bringing her up all the time.

That is so true. Fundamentalists seem more obsessed about Mary than we Catholics. Problem is that Fundamentalists cannot see outside their realm of beliefs and simply have a profound misunderstanding about what the RCC teaches on Mary.

 

[Radical]

Hey Contarini, after reading your response it appears to me that when you look at protestantism, you can only see a glass half empty and when you look at the Apostolic Succession bunch, your view is affected by your rose coloured glasses.

Not every tradition should be. But Tradition certainly should be.

This seems to assume that a big “T” tradition actually exists and that it can be distinguished from all the other tradition…and if that is a bad assumption, then we have a religion that has a large component that is merely a man-made invention. I see our perspectives are very different…and I see no reason to make that assumption.

The only way we have Christianity at all is by Tradition–by a continuous process of handing down the Faith from one generation to another. If that process is broken to the point that we have to reconstruct the Faith, then we no longer have historic Christianity at all but a nice religion of our own invention.

I don’t know where to start with this…I don’t think that the process of handing down the Faith from one generation to the next has been inerrant, and as such IMHO we no longer have historic Christianity (and it hasn’t always been all that nice). What you want to classify as development would (IMHO) be classified as innovation in any other institution or body of rules and regulations.

Looks to whom? Why should a gaggle of modern Christians, themselves imprisoned by their own cultural prejudices, have the awe-inspiring authority to decide that what has been thought to be Sacred Tradition is really just “the product of pious imagination”?

Why not? If we are given the awe-inspiring authority to decide for ourselves, who Jesus was and what he did for us, why shouldn’t we also have the opportunity to decide for ourselves the less important matter of what is really just “the product of pious imagination” and need not be followed for our walk? If the ECFs were somehow freed from their own cultural prejudices then you might be able to begin to make a case that they were somehow more receptive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit than moderns. It is not that we are their betters, it is that they aren’t our superiors.

If such a decision is ever to be made, it must be made by a body that can speak for the Church as a whole …

The apostles might have been such a body, but they split up and died. Since then, nothing close. The Church consists of all those to whom the Holy Spirit is given (past, present and future)…I don’t see how a very small bunch from an ancient hierarchy has the authority to speak for the whole Church…especially for the modern church that was never consulted by the ancients.

… and stands in unbroken continuity with the Faith up to this point.

Do you think that the orthodox had a better claim to an unbroken continuity with the Faith than the Arians? If so, why…you’re a reasonable and informed fellow and I’d like to hear your take on that?

Straw man. We aren’t talking about individual Fathers but about the mind of the Church as a whole.

So the whole is greater than the sum of the parts? How is it that individually they are fallible men, but their collective action is inerrant? Or isn’t that what you are saying? This just seems to be another point at which our differing faiths take us to differing positions.

The former is obviously true. The latter is not, in my opinion. Not if we define “absolute infallibility” as refraining from sanctioning any developments that violate the Faith as it has been handed down. It is not obvious that either the Roman Communion or the Orthodox have violated the integrity of the Faith.

Perhaps it isn’t obvious to you, but I would say the likelihood of the Roman Communion not having violated the integrity of the Faith = the likelihood of the Orthodox not having violated the integrity of the Faith = some Protestant group succeeding in returning precisely to the original Faith

We know that the Holy Spirit has been promised to lead us into all truth. There is no plausible reason to believe that the Holy Spirit has guided infallibly any of the primitivist reconstruction attempts–they all leave out way too much.

and I look at the converse and conclude that there is no plausible reason to believe that the Holy Spirit has guided infallibly either the Roman Communion or in the Eastern Communion–they have both added way too much.

 

[Radical]

I recognize that your mileage may differ, and I have no absolute proof that I’m right and you are wrong in our respective evaluations. But I have two considerations to offer:

1. The language of the Holy Spirit’s guidance both in the New Testament and in Tradition is always of preservation and not of reconstruction.

I wouldn’t look at it as preservation vs. reconstruction. If the task is preservation of a forrest…adding a bunch of foreign species of tree is not preserving it and taking an axe and cutting out as many of the foreign species as can be identified is not strictly reconstruction.

1. Even excluding supernatural considerations, it’s much easier to preserve than to reconstruct.

our respective faiths keep taking us different directions

Fair enough. Maybe your position isn’t nonsense–it just doesn’t seem worth the trouble.

going back to the forrest analogy…it is not only worth the trouble, but it is the best we can do. Those foreign species aren’t doing anyone any good. The “Mary always points us to Jesus” justification sounds as valid as someone arguing that one can get a better look at the moon if one only stands under this tree and peers through the heavy canopy of leaves.

Why are you so sure this is impossible?

on a previous post, (that I haven’t found the time to address), you said:

If we are talking about the relative likelihood of the virginal conception, the perpetual virginity (and other stories about Mary found in the Protoevangelion of James), and the Assumption/Dormition legends being historically accurate, then I certainly agree that each of these stories is progressively much less likely than the one before.

Our faiths keep taking us to different conclusions, but if we set them aside and use the historical approach, then it seems that we could possibly arrive at the same conclusion. This diminishing likelihood tells me that the historic Faith has indeed been compromised.

Furthermore (and this is what I would maintain as an Anglican), there is a difference between getting some doctrines wrong and losing the Faith in such a way that we have to put it back together again.

agreed, and I would add that there is a great difference between the hierarchy adding an insight that the faithful may find edifying and adding a claim that must be accepted.

Cheers

 

[mark_a]

Could you please provide the source?

saint-mary.net/coptic_faith/SaintMaryintheOrthodoxConcept.pdf

 

[Radical]

saint-mary.net/coptic_faith/SaintMaryintheOrthodoxConcept.pdf

Thanks, but I read the bit on Mary and grace and original sin and didn’t find the 2nd century source that states that Mary was w/o stain…perhaps you could just give me the name of the 2nd century Coptic work?

 

[KathleenGee]

When I hear that our Catholic Tradition is a man made tradition, it makes me cry out, ‘That is a falsehood!’

Radical you are denying the work of the Holy Spirit with the Church,and its right and duty to build church through Christ and the apostles…and for each enduring age.

You are mixing up fallen nature, and broken faith with legitimate church constructs.

 

[Non_Serviam]

The same is true on both sides. The only “advantage” Protestants have is that they are shameless about being willing to junk centuries of tradition if necessary. But until the 19th century people didn’t generally think in terms of Protestant development. Both sides tried to prove (foolishly) that they were identical with the early Church (though as I said, Protestants had the advantage that they could throw out everything since the NT if they needed to–and they more or less did if they wanted to make the “identical” claim, not that it’s historically convincing even with regard to the NT).

Aren’t you begging the question a bit using terms such as shameless and junk? I can hear a Marcionite using the same words to decry the “shameless junking” of Marcion’s hard work sorting out true scripture from false.

Now if you are saying that Protestants are quite willing to conclude that large chunks of Christian history don’t shed light on the teachings or actions of the early church and aren’t useful in studying those early teachings and actions, I think we have a point of discussion.

Some kind of theory of development is an absolute necessity for all Christians if we are going to have a shred of historical honesty. That’s one of my big problems with the Orthodox, but it’s really just their cultural conservatism, I think. None of us wanted to come up with a theory of development, which is the truth behind your statement above.

The question is development of WHAT? We certainly see development in the NT, development of practice, development of “canon law” for lack of a better term, development of structure. The follow-up question is do we see development of doctrine?

It would appear that we do, although outside of Paul, we see very little of it. Even in the case of Paul, most of the development centers around transplanting the faith into non-Jewish communities and the dividing line between practice and doctrine can get blurry to say the least.

What we don’t find is Paul or the other Apostles engaging in speculative theology: elaborating an hierarchy of angelic choirs for example. The focus is kept very much in the realm of Salvation History and the practical outworkings of the Incarnation.

I agree that the idea is misused–but you’re misstating the case a bit. The argument isn’t so much that Benedict’s Unam Sanctam is the seed of the “non-Catholics are in some way members of the Church” theory, but that (for instance) Rome’s and Augustine’s insistence (against Cyprian and later the Donatists) on the validity of heretical baptism is the seed, and that this longstanding trajectory within Catholicism is part of the context within which Unam Sanctam should be interpreted.

That’s one way to interpret it, or it is quite possible to say that the church headed in one direction, one or more leaders took a contrasting tangent, and in a later period the course changed again. Paul was mistaken about how soon Christ would return-does that discount everything else he said?

Either you think it does and have to come up with some elaborate rationalizations to make it all fit into a “longstanding trajectory” or you acknowledge that Paul was mistaken on this point, that God wanted us to see that he was mistaken (quite possibly to show that a church doesn’t have to be infallible to follow Christ). Only fundamentalists and those with an “or Jesus lied” doctrine of infallibility (funny how those two groups have so much in common and don’t realize it) go through the former exercise.

It is frustrating that contemporary RCs are unwilling to admit that Benedict and the Fathers of Florence clearly didn’t intend their words to be interpreted as Vatican II interprets them. But the proper response to this is not to reject the idea of doctrinal development altogether. Going after doctrinal development is a bad idea, because historical continuity is an essential in Christianity and reconstruction of primitive Christianity is impossible. Therefore, either we have some doctrine of development or we give up on Christianity altogether. And that really *is *that simple.

While reconstructing primitive Christianity may be impossible, pruning the overgrowth that surrounds it to get back to a more biblical, apostolic Christianity is possible. Just because Luther didn’t get it totally right doesn’t mean that it isn’t a worthy goal to strive for. The Apostles didn’t quit because all of Judaism didn’t decide to follow their lead.

Methinks you make a bit much of historical continuity-as Radical points out below, the Arian bishops had the same apostolic succession as Athanasius-so that can’t be the touchstone of Apostolic fidelity. Rather it is fidelity to their message that they’ve left us in written form. Historical continuity is helpful in discerning that message, but enough of the “primitive” Apostolic teaching can be gleaned from it for one to understand Christ, His teachings and how the Apostles and other responded to recognize one’s own responsibility.

(con’t)

 

[Non_Serviam]

Really? You think, as a Protestant, that post-Vatican-II Catholicism is less like the teaching of the Apostles than Tridentine Catholicism?

Part of development is a continual “ressourcement,” returning to the sources of the Faith for renewal. Take away development, and it seems to me that your only choices are a hide-bound conservatism which blindly insists that whatever we believe today must have been believed by the Apostles, or a primitivism that continually reinvents the wheel. Since I think both of these positions are completely untenable (the first is historically dishonest and the second is nonsense), I think that development is a necessary doctrine if we are going to be Christians at all.

I think if we are going with "historical continuity as a criterion (your point, not mine) that the Tridentine wing of Catholicism can lay a lot more continuity on the scale than the VII crowd-another reason why we disagree on its relative importance. The catch with your concept of “ressourcement” is that we get to decide which lines of thought and practice from the past are “relevant”. That’s the theological equivalent of judicial activism. Viewed in that light, a primitivist streak, doesn’t seem so offputting. The Apostles were able to be saved without knowing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin-why can’t we?

Fair enough–it seems as if you have an idea of what legitimate development looks like, and think that Catholics are abusing this. That’s constructive. So what does legitimate development look like and how does one distinguish it from “revisionism”?

Edwin

 

[Radical]

First of all, I don’t think infallibility is the issue. Maybe in the first instance, given how difficult the virginal conception is for many modern folks (so that many of us need the infallible authority of the Church telling us that this is a non-negotiable). I would also add that it would be quite possible to hold Matthew and Luke to be Holy Scripture and still interpret the virginal conception as a pious legend–unless one is going to maintain that Holy Scripture contains no pious legends. (I’m being somewhat facetious, since that is probably what you do believe.)

I am prepared to allow for pious legends w/i scripture…though I am not rushing to label the virgin conception as one of them.

But with regard to Marian piety generally, I think that this has much to recommend it on its own ground as a devotional elaboration on Christian belief in the Incarnation.

and I have such a hard time seeing how so much of it relates to the incarnation.

At any rate, the broader question in both cases really isn’t about infallibility but about whether we take a critical view of doctrinal development or not. What I mean by a critical view in this context is setting up what appear to be earlier stages in the tradition over against later ones. That is what the OP did. But in typical conservative Protestant fashion, the OP drew the line at applying this methodology *within *Scripture.

It is somewhat reasonable to do, b/c the two sides share the same view of the data’s status…take it outside of the NT and the Catholic and Protestant views wrt the value of the ECFs diverges. Personally, I like the idea of extending the time and material to be considered b/c it makes the resounding silence more impressive. That said, I think you have provided a reasonable answer with: “The best explanation for why Mark and Paul don’t talk about the virginal conception, or show much interest in Jesus’ birth at all, is that their theology didn’t require it.” I don’t know, however, that your explanation works for why Paul doesn’t talk about Mary at all. If Paul’s theology doesn’t require Mary, then it seems his theology is very different from Catholic and Orthodox theology and it would seem that he didn’t see Marian piety as a means of elaborating on the Incarnation as it does not merit a mention.

My challenge is: why? Given that acceptance of Scripture in the first place depends to some extent on accepting the historic witness of the Church, this methodology doesn’t make sense to me.

I would suggest that part of it has to do the difference between with the perceived source. As you noted, there is little debate over certain of the Pauline epistles. We have confidence in who wrote them, we have confidence in what authority Paul claimed and we have confidence that they have been preserved in their original form with but a few minor alterations. In contrast, with the development of Marian doctrine we can’t hold it up and say that, “This is from the apostles”. It seems (to me based in part on the “glaring hiatus”) that as the ECFs scoured the OT and NT and as they reflected more deeply on scripture they began to see Mary referenced in various passages. At the same time, as they reflected on the Incarnation, their piety and reasoning told them that Mary must have been elevated to a level of purity unknown to any other b/c of the manner in which she was connected to God himself. The ECFs may have been better positioned than us to say whether 1 Corinthians was from the hand of Paul and should be regarded as scripture (or maybe we can say with confidence that they got that right). On the other hand, they were not better positioned to say whether Mary should be properly called the new Eve or the new Ark or seen in Revelation. Further, they were not better positioned to apply reasoning and decide whether Mary must have been free from sin or not or whether she is due hyperdulia.

 

[FantomScholar]

Well, you could point to places where Marian devotion really does patently undercut devotion to Christ. As it stands, you simply assume this to be true and then point to the existence of Marian devotion as evidence that devotion to Christ is being undercut. When I say “but these same people were clearly devoted to Christ,” you respond in effect “yes, too bad they were devoted to Mary too.”

Marian devotion patently undercuts devotion to Christ on the simple grounds that the devotion given to Mary, the titles ascribed to her, her supposed graces toward the Church, etc. all mirror those things which exclusively belong to Christ. I am not interested if others protest that such devotion does not undercut the honor and glory given to Christ. The fact of the matter is that either such devotion robs Christ of His glory or it does not. My argument is not, well such and such theologian was devoted to Mary, so therefore, he wrote little of Christ. My argument is that by being devoted to Mary, from God’s perspective, the devotion that properly belongs to His Son alone is detracted from.

 

[FantomScholar]

Are you saying that you don’t have a problem with the kind of Marian devotion expressed, for instance, in this text? You don’t have a problem with the Orthodox frequently calling out in their services, “O Theotokos, save us”? But you do have a problem with the devotion to Mary that flourished in post-Reformation Catholicism. That’s a position with which I might agree, particularly if we are talking about some of the 19th-century developments in which Mary’s role was less explicitly linked to the Incarnation than had previously been the case. However, the differences are quite nuanced and I would like to be sure that we are talking about these specific later developments. There’s plenty of Marian piety in the East that Protestants typically would see as truly excessive. In fact, you run into it in the Eucharistic Liturgy itself far more in the East than in the West, because of the greater conservatism of the Latin Mass, which led to much of the Marian devotion being expressed in popular devotions clearly separate from the Mass.

We can certainly discuss Eastern devotion to Mary if you wish, however, the topic of conversation thus far was Roman Catholicism, thus I did not discuss it among the Eastern and Orthodox Churches.

What on earth do you mean, Jesus isn’t a covenant? What was that whole “new covenant in my blood” business about, then?

Jesus is not A or THE covenant. His person and work inaugurates the covenant and makes it effective for those who are united to Him by faith.

Sure there is–by comparison to the Rule of Faith.

What historical rule of faith attaches Mary as the ark of the new covenant to essential biblical interpretation? As far as I can see in history, the traditional rules of faith of the creeds mention Mary only in connection to the virgin birth of Christ.

Why on earth not? That’s how typological use of the OT works when the New Testament writers do it. Check the context of just about any OT passage applied to Jesus in the NT and you’ll find all sorts of details that don’t fit at all. To make any typology or claim of prophetic fulfillment work you *have *to pick and choose.

Yes, but on the one hand you have an inspired writer of Scripture, guided by the Spirit, doing the picking and choosing. You don’t have that with the pious imaginations of later theologians. While one is free to follow the interpretations of such writers, to say it should be used as a basis of dogma is an entirely different matter.

 

[FantomScholar]

Where do you find Rome making such a claim.

The documents of the First Vatican Council on the dogmas surrounding the papacy for one.

 

[SteveVH]

Marian devotion patently undercuts devotion to Christ on the simple grounds that the devotion given to Mary, the titles ascribed to her, her supposed graces toward the Church, etc. all mirror those things which exclusively belong to Christ. I am not interested if others protest that such devotion does not undercut the honor and glory given to Christ. The fact of the matter is that either such devotion robs Christ of His glory or it does not. My argument is not, well such and such theologian was devoted to Mary, so therefore, he wrote little of Christ. My argument is that by being devoted to Mary, from God’s perspective, the devotion that properly belongs to His Son alone is detracted from.

I could not disagree more. I don’t know if you are a parent or not, but I will tell you that the love for one of my children does not undercut the love I have for my other children or for my wife. That’s the wonderful thing about love. It continues to grow, not diminish.

All Mary does and says points to Christ. Even the title “Mother of God” says more about who Jesus is than who Mary is. The devotion given to Mary is not at all the same as that given to Christ. We adore and worship Christ. He is divine, He is our God. She is not. We honor Mary as His mother and look to her as the most perfect model of what it means to be Christian.

Marian prayers are not prayers of worship, but rather of intercession, just as I might ask you to pray for me. If your prayers have an effect on my life, why not Jesus’ own mother’s prayers? I think you misunderstand the position Mary holds within the Catholic Church. If she is good enough for Jesus, she is good enough for me. Because Jesus is the Head of the Church and Mary is His mother, she is also the mother of the Church. If you are Christian, she is your mother also. We are commanded to honor our mother and father. The gospel tells us that all nations will call her blessed. Elizabeth proclaimed “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” Yet many still try to diminish her role.

On the contrary, honoring Mary pleases her Son, Jesus, just as it please me when someone honors my mother. I don’t ask them “what about me?”. I thank them.

 

[FantomScholar]

I could not disagree more. I don’t know if you are a parent or not, but I will tell you that the love for one of my children does not undercut the love I have for my other children or for my wife. That’s the wonderful thing about love. We don’t have a finite amount that will run out such that if we love one, we must love another a little less.

All Mary does and says points to Christ. Even the title “Mother of God” says more about who Jesus is than who Mary is. The devotion given to Mary is not at all the same as that given to Christ. We adore and worship Christ. He is divine, He is our God. She is not. We honor Mary as His mother and look to her as the most perfect model of what it means to be Christian. Marian prayers are not prayers of worship, but rather of intercession, just as I might ask you to pray for me. If your prayers have an effect on my life, why not Jesus’ own mother’s prayers? I think you misunderstand the position Mary holds within the Catholic Church.

I understand what you are saying, Steve. If you want to claim love for Mary, that is one thing. We can all admire, respect and give witness to the faithful throughout the ages. You and I know, however, that this is not merely the case with Rome’s devotion to Mary. She is ascribed (not dogmatically, I understand) the titles of co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix, the Catechism makes the claim that no graces come to man but through Mary’s intercession. This is far more than saying we love Mary. The abuses, that even Rome admits, occur in places like Latin America are evidence of this.

One of God’s names is Jealous, and God wishes to be served alone. I realize that many may think that God is quite willing to be served along side or together with Mary, but almost everyone can recognize that there comes a time when the devotion to Mary is excessive, where it elevates her to the position of a goddess, even though the word is not used.