How can we know and distinguish dotrines: specific and universal?

[MarcoPG]

Hello,

How do we know, when we read Scripture, what is meant to be specific to one church, or one culture, or one specific time, and what is meant to be universal and timeless?

And how does the Magisterium do this, if it is the only way we have ?

Thank you

 

[anixx]

Hello,

How do we know, when we read Scripture, what is meant to be specific to one church, or one culture, or one specific time, and what is meant to be universal and timeless?

And how does the Magisterium do this, if it is the only way we have ?

Thank you

To my knowledge, doctrine is always universal. You can’t have one Church believing in something and another believing in something else. There would be no unity of faith.

Doctrine - a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

For unity is required for all to adhere to entire doctrine. So there can be no specific or time-bound doctrine. It is either universal and timeless, or it isn’t doctrine, it’s opinion.

 

[MarcoPG]

Ok I may be confusing pastoral teachings and doctrine…

Let’s take for instance the pauline letters to one specific Church, he adresses some specific issues. Still we find there universal teachings, and some who are not meant to bound anyone but, say, the Ephesians.

Could it be simply the four meaning of Scripture that get me confused?

 

[LittleFlower378]

I want to learn more about this as well, there is a good book, although rather expensice called Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ottt.

 

[anixx]

Ok I may be confusing pastoral teachings and doctrine…

Let’s take for instance the pauline letters to one specific Church, he adresses some specific issues. Still we find there universal teachings, and some who are not meant to bound anyone but, say, the Ephesians.

Could it be simply the four meaning of Scripture that get me confused?

Can you give a concrete example?!

 

[MarcoPG]

Corinthians 11
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.

It seems that people in Corinth used to have practices that weren’t regarded as appropriate, but now it is not the case anymore, women can have short, long hair, as for men.
It may have a second meaning, too, and that is my point. How to know where it is “only literal” and when it should be taken more widely and not in a partcular time or culture?

Is the Magisterium the only way, or we could be able to see and interpret this?

edit: oh look what i’ve found : catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-it-a-doctrine-or-a-discipline in that sense i meant .

 

[FAB]

Corinthians 11
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.

It seems that people in Corinth used to have practices that weren’t regarded as appropriate, but now it is not the case anymore, women can have short, long hair, as for men.
It may have a second meaning, too, and that is my point. How to know where it is “only literal” and when it should be taken more widely and not in a partcular time or culture?

Is the Magisterium the only way, or we could be able to see and interpret this?

edit: oh look what i’ve found : catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-it-a-doctrine-or-a-discipline in that sense i meant .

We as Catholics read the bible using a method of Biblical Criticism. It looks at the time of the writing in history, type of writing, who it was written for, errors in translations and much more.

The passage you quote has to first be put in historical context and who it was written to.
The Roman world of Christian convert in a Roman port City with a temple to a goddess of love.
Prostitution would have common and they would have worn long hair to attract customers.
St. Paul was telling the women of this community that were Christian that they needed to protect themselves. They need to look and act different, so either cover your head or cut it short so you won’t be confused as being a prostitute or as a member of the cult of the goddess.
Our interpenetration today should still be don’t act like others in the world. We should act, talk and even dress, our morals and our lifestyle needs to reflect and be an example of out Catholic Faith.
Dcn. Frank

 

[ProVobis]

IMO among all the legalities involved, we are overlooking a third possibility contained within Pauline scripture as well as Papal documents: WISDOM.

 

[Abu]

LittleFlower378 #4
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ottt.

The understanding of infallibility as expressed there is limited as it does not cover the *Motu Proprio *of St John Paul II which defines dogma and doctrine in his Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998

The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]

• ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

 

[Sirach2]

Hi Marco,

There is a difference between dogma, doctrine, and disciplines. Dogma is unchangeable revelation, such as we recite in our Creed. Doctrine may develop more fully according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who guides the Church for the sake of the faithful. Disciplines may change, such as the rubrics of the Mass or some of the celebrations of our sacraments, even the Divine Office. Maybe you’ll remember the change in the Roman Missal a couple years ago with the wording used in our liturgy.

These things are nitpicked to death in some of our forums by those who do not understand the difference between these three items, and these persons confuse the latter two with dogma and upset not only themselves, but others, who likewise become confused. I’m so glad there are persons with wisdom and true knowledge who are able to bring light into these gray areas of contention. Of course, we can always trust the teachings in the Catechism and those of the Church, providing we do not rely on personal private interpretation of exceedingly complex writings that the Holy See has issued after perusing many other documents that served as background for their decisions. These are not always available to the casual reader of a document.

 

[ProVobis]

To my knowledge, doctrine is always universal. You can’t have one Church believing in something and another believing in something else. There would be no unity of faith.

Doctrine - a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

For unity is required for all to adhere to entire doctrine. So there can be no specific or time-bound doctrine. It is either universal and timeless, or it isn’t doctrine, it’s opinion.

The lines between doctrine and discipline aren’t that crystal clear in many cases, however. For example, some of Trent document pages are labelled doctrina but they have anathemas attached. One can also point to apostolica disciplina, such as incense, low tones, and such to be used as Mass in Session 22, among other things. One can also argue these aren’t doctrines; yet there are expressed anathemas against. I suppose the point I’m making is that care must be taken to postulate the doctrine precisely, which IMO has not been done in recent times regarding Trent.

 

[TimothyH]

Corinthians 11
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.

It seems that people in Corinth used to have practices that weren’t regarded as appropriate, but now it is not the case anymore, women can have short, long hair, as for men.
It may have a second meaning, too, and that is my point. How to know where it is “only literal” and when it should be taken more widely and not in a partcular time or culture?

Is the Magisterium the only way, or we could be able to see and interpret this?

edit: oh look what i’ve found : catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-it-a-doctrine-or-a-discipline in that sense i meant .

I think you are onto something with the statement in bold/red. There is a broader sense to Paul’s correction on these issues. Bear with me…

Taking your example, Paul’s teaching has little do do with the length of hair and covering one’s head per se, but is rather his way of illustrating the good and bad behavior of the members of the Church in Corinth.

The first letter to the Corinthians was written to address specific problems in the Church at Corinth - immorality, disunity and factions, disorder in worship, etc. For each of these Paul identifies the problem and then offers ways to fix each of them. For example, disorder in worship was a was a major problem. The fix was to eat at home, only have a few people speak and the rest remain quiet, etc. Eating at home and women remaining silent was not the topic Paul was addressing but rather disorderly worship. Wanton eating and everyone speaking out of turn were merely symptoms of the problem Paul was addressing - disorderly worship.

In the case of long and short hair, Paul is simply establishing that there is a natural order to things and that the order designed by God is visible in the created world.

Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, (1 Corinthians 11:14)

He then warns that the Church will respect the natural order of things…

If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:16)

…and then begins identifying the problems in the Church and how to fix them.

Divisions and Factions

*Problem: **For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, *(1 Corinthians 11:18)
Fix: Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. (1 Corinthians 12:27)

Disorderly Worship

Problem: If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? (1 Corinthians 14:23)
*Fix: **So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; but all things should be done decently and in order. *(1 Corinthians 14:39-40)

And so forth.

This last one causes much anxiety. When Paul tells women to be silent in Church it has less to do with whether women should speak and more to do with disorderly worship in Church. Issues like women readers and even ordination of women are brought up but that’s not Paul’s point. His point is disorder. His solution is that most everyone should shut up!

I think we have to look at the broader context of what Paul is discussing here. Factions, drunkeness, disorder, encroachment of paganism into orthodox doctrine, immorality… These are what Paul is really concerned about.

-Tim-

 

[MarcoPG]

The lines between doctrine and discipline aren’t that crystal clear in many cases, however. For example, some of Trent document pages are labelled doctrina but they have anathemas attached. One can also point to apostolica disciplina, such as incense, low tones, and such to be used as Mass in Session 22, among other things. One can also argue these aren’t doctrines; yet there are expressed anathemas against. I suppose the point I’m making is that care must be taken to postulate the doctrine precisely, which IMO has not been done in recent times regarding Trent.

Thank you to all for your answers!

Yes i know what dogma, doctrine and disciplines are, the thing was how to know which is which, and within time or not.

 

[Sirach2]

Thank you to all for your answers!

Yes i know what dogma, doctrine and disciplines are, the thing was how to know which is which, and within time or not.

JReducation:

You may want to read the works of St. Boniface. He speaks very clearly on the authority of the pope over councils, even those of the past and over previous popes. To paraphrase him, no pope is bound by any decree of any council or any previous pope unless that which is decreed is explicitly contained in divine revelation.

No pope is bound by any doctor of the church, any saint or any miracle or an private apparition. All revelation comes from Christ. All law comes from Christ and it is written in the heart of the pope. That’s it in a nutshell. It’s a very long statement, which you may be able to find online.

This is the important distinction that may help you, Marco. Anethemas of previous popes, sometimes issued in former Councils, may not bind other popes in perpetuity.

If you search the Vatican re our latest council documents, the first two are “Dogmatic” Constitutions, having the highest authority; the next two are Constitutions, and the others are designated either “Declarations” or “Decrees” that you will find here.

Safety for you will consist in following this Council’s teachings, particularly the Dogmatic Constitutions, for when the Councilors drafted these documents, the footnotes demonstrate that they embraced the hermeneutics contained in older teachings of the Church. All of these teachings are now contained in the CCC.
Here is another good reference that may help you.

And finally, one more solid reference from the Vatican here.

FIRST QUESTION
Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
RESPONSE
The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council. Paul VI affirmed it and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.

 

[Sirach2]

Marco, there’s one last technical point I can share, in case you did not know of it. If you go to the “google” search function instead of the usual “advanced” search, you can type in many words to look for something that bothers you. The search is confined only to Catholic Answers.

Example: Suppose you want to know what St. Paul meant about women being silent in church, just type in “St. Paul women must be silent in church.” You will find ten pages of posts here at CAF that address this. But if you try to find it in the advanced search, you can only type one keyword, and results will be unsuccessful.

 

[ProVobis]

I think you are onto something with the statement in bold/red. There is a broader sense to Paul’s correction on these issues. Bear with me…

Taking your example, Paul’s teaching has little do do with the length of hair and covering one’s head per se, but is rather his way of illustrating the good and bad behavior of the members of the Church in Corinth.

The first letter to the Corinthians was written to address specific problems in the Church at Corinth - immorality, disunity and factions, disorder in worship, etc. For each of these Paul identifies the problem and then offers ways to fix each of them. For example, disorder in worship was a was a major problem. The fix was to eat at home, only have a few people speak and the rest remain quiet, etc. Eating at home and women remaining silent was not the topic Paul was addressing but rather disorderly worship. Wanton eating and everyone speaking out of turn were merely symptoms of the problem Paul was addressing - disorderly worship.

In the case of long and short hair, Paul is simply establishing that there is a natural order to things and that the order designed by God is visible in the created world.

Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, (1 Corinthians 11:14)

He then warns that the Church will respect the natural order of things…

If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:16)

…and then begins identifying the problems in the Church and how to fix them.

Divisions and Factions

*Problem: **For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, ***(1 Corinthians 11:18)
Fix: Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. (1 Corinthians 12:27)

Disorderly Worship

Problem: If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? (1 Corinthians 14:23)
*Fix: **So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; but all things should be done decently and in order. ***(1 Corinthians 14:39-40)

And so forth.

This last one causes much anxiety. When Paul tells women to be silent in Church it has less to do with whether women should speak and more to do with disorderly worship in Church. Issues like women readers and even ordination of women are brought up but that’s not Paul’s point. His point is disorder. His solution is that most everyone should shut up!

I think we have to look at the broader context of what Paul is discussing here. Factions, drunkeness, disorder, encroachment of paganism into orthodox doctrine, immorality… These are what Paul is really concerned about.

-Tim-

IOW, parts of scripture (which is supposed to be part of the Deposit of Faith) aren’t applicable anymore? I could easily say that your above-mentioned things (disorder, etc.) still exist today, if not to a greater extent than they were back in the first century. Futhermore, AFAIK, 1 Corinthians is still being read at the Liturgy of the Word so certainly the Church feels it’s of some value today.

Also, while we’re on the Paulian letters, what is your take on 1 Corinthians 1 (I’m giving you the Knox translation here.)?

10 Only I entreat you, brethren, as you love the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, use, all of you, the same language. There must be no divisions among you; you must be restored to unity of mind and purpose. 11 The account I have of you, my brethren, from Chloe’s household, is that there are dissensions among you;

If it were up to me, I’d put this not under doctrine, dogma category but wisdom.

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you to all for your answers!

Yes i know what dogma, doctrine and disciplines are, the thing was how to know which is which, and within time or not.

Okay. You might also want to consider authority and weight of that authority. As is stated from the ewtn site:

Authoritative. Finally, the Church teaches things which are neither proposed as formally revealed or definitively proposed. This is the category of authoritative teaching. Anything in the Catechism or a pope’s writings and addresses that is not “of divine and catholic faith” if clearly meant to take a position, without deciding it by proposing it as revealed or as definitive, is authoritively taught. It should receive “religious obedience of intellect and will,” as opposed to the assent of faith. Such obedience is an act of justice. It shows the respect Catholics owe the Pope, and it humbly acknowledges that by charism and grace of vocation the Pope is more likely to be right than those who disagree with him. As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” **Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope. **

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105

 

[TimothyH]

IOW, parts of scripture (which is supposed to be part of the Deposit of Faith) aren’t applicable anymore? I could easily say that your above-mentioned things (disorder, etc.) still exist today, if not to a greater extent than they were back in the first century. Futhermore, AFAIK, 1 Corinthians is still being read at the Liturgy of the Word so certainly the Church feels it’s of some value today.

Regarding red/bold, no. That is not what I said. Those are your words, not mine. I did not say that.

You are correct however, that the problems faced by the Church at Corinth still exist today. In many cases these same problems are much worse now. But we have to ask ourselves what the fix is today?

Some truths are always applicable - bearing with the faults of others, putting the will of others first, and not speaking out of turn. But we have to ask ourselves if the length of one’s hair or veiling is applicable to the issue of disorder today? Is eating large meals at Church and telling people that they must eat at home an issue we have to deal with today? Is the length of a woman’s hair something we should be dealing with today? Is the silence of women something applicable today in order to keep order?

The real solution to dealing with these problems has to be rooted in today. Paul was speaking to a specific community at a specific time. Love, forbearance, obedience, decorum and self-control transcend time and space, but the length of someone’s hair? I don’t think so. That’s how Bible literalists get into error.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

Regarding red/bold, no. That is not what I said. Those are your words, not mine. I did not say that.

You are correct however, that the problems faced by the Church at Corinth still exist today. In many cases these same problems are much worse now. But we have to ask ourselves what the fix is today?

Some truths are always applicable - bearing with the faults of others, putting the will of others first, and not speaking out of turn. But we have to ask ourselves if the length of one’s hair or veiling is applicable to the issue of disorder today? Is eating large meals at Church and telling people that they must eat at home an issue we have to deal with today? Is the length of a woman’s hair something we should be dealing with today? Is the silence of women something applicable today in order to keep order?

The real solution to dealing with these problems has to be rooted in today. Paul was speaking to a specific community at a specific time. Love, forbearance, obedience, decorum and self-control transcend time and space, but the length of someone’s hair? I don’t think so. That’s how Bible literalists get into error.

-Tim-

Okay, good answer.

My point was that doctrine, dogma, etc. has to be carefully and exactly stated in order to be of any value. Immaculate Conception, for example. How many people think this is another term for the virgin birth of Christ rather than Mary’s state of soul since the beginning? Another dogma is the Assumption.

 

[TimothyH]

Okay, good answer.

My point was that doctrine, dogma, etc. has to be carefully and exactly stated in order to be of any value. Immaculate Conception, for example. How many people think this is another term for the virgin birth of Christ rather than Mary’s state of soul since the beginning? Another dogma is the Assumption.

You are absolutely right. Thank God for a Church with a Magisterium to keep us from error, even though we wish it were more precise at times.

Sometimes I wish the Holy Father - whomever it is at any given time - would do a series of fireside chats similar to what President Roosevelt did. The Pope could just sit in a chair next to a fire with a blanket on his lap, look at the camera and address the people - not clergy and theologians - but teach these things to you and I and tell us why it matters in our everyday life, and how it will help us get to heaven.

-Tim-