Later Declared Doctrine:

[Roamin_Xian]

Prior to my very recent return to the Church, I found that my confusion/irritation with Catholicism was this idea of “later” declared doctrine (like Infallibility in 1870), or atleast my perception of it.

Since the Holy Spirit guides the Church, why is it that not all doctrines were declared at the same time?

 

[06convert]

Because we discover better ways to explain things. Humans are a bit slow not only at realizing certain things, but getting them written down in a way for everyone to understand.

Every doctrine has been part of the Church since the beginning.

Taking your example of Infallibility. The Church didn’t become infallible when the doctrine was written, it was always infallible, they just didn’t have it written down at first.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

My understanding is that these things were always believed, but as a result from some controversy or misunderstanding it was necessary to formally define them. That’s what a dogma is: a formally defined explanation of something always believed.

It’s like when I was a kid; we always knew and were always told to wipe our feet before entering the house. Well, as it happens with kids we’d forget or get a lil lax only to find a handwritten note on the door reminding us: “FROM NOW ON WIPE YOUR FEET BEFORE ENTERING!”.

So, the note on the door is like a formally defined dogma even though it came after the fact.

 

[JRKH]

Others will give different and better answers no doubt but here is my take on it.

I liken it to a parent teaching a child. the teaching of the Holy Spirit is geared to the mental and emotional maturity of the Church as a whole.
The Holy Spirit reveals, educates, enlightens in the way that we are able to understand.

Another way to look at it is this. Individuals might recieve greater enlightenment (look at the Great saints and Doctors of the Church), but that revelation/enlightenment is different than doctrinal revelation and always precedes it. As individual(s) receive this enlightenment they often write of it which brings the information into the realm of the visible Church. This information is then read, prayed upon and discussed. After a time as more members of the Church come to understand, through the prayerful enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, and accept a given idea it may be proposed as a doctrinal belief. Then follows ever greater discusion and prayerful reflection before something is accepted as doctrine.
In all of this (overly simplified) process, the Holy Spirit is at work revealing and educating the faithful. For us the beauty of this process is that it allows the faithful and the Church to discern the true origin of a given idea. If it of the Holy spirit then nothing will prevent it’s adoption as doctrine. If it is not of the Holy Spirit, it will never be adopeted as doctrine and will be rejected.

I hope this helps.

Peace
James

 

[Maranatha]

Doctrines are declared when they are disputed. As long as all Catholics agree on a teaching, there is no reason to define it.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Ok, that helps, but what about Immaculate Conception? From what I remember, St. Thomas Aquinas opposed it- he wouldn’t have if it had been official doctrine.

This is one area I still struggle with.

 

[JRKH]

My understanding is that these things were always believed, but as a result from some controversy or misunderstanding it was necessary to formally define them. That’s what a dogma is: a formally defined explanation of something always believed.

It’s like when I was a kid; we always knew and were always told to wipe our feet before entering the house. Well, as it happens with kids we’d forget or get a lil lax only to find a handwritten note on the door reminding us: “FROM NOW ON WIPE YOUR FEET BEFORE ENTERING!”.

I like this analogy. It’s just what I was trying to think of!!

Peace
James

 

[Genesis315]

It bears pointing out that the definitive proclamation of a truth does not mean the truth wasn’t believed before–rather, quite the opposite. Usually, when the whole Church already believes something, there is no need for extraordinary intervention. However, when the Pope or a Council decides a truth has been cast in doubt, they may choose to make a definitive proclamation after listening to the debate.

Similarly, truths can and often are definitively proclaimed in an extraordinary manner multiple times.

Similarly, some truths are definitively proclaimed which are not dogma themselves (truths revealed by God), but rather are logical necessities based on actual dogmas. The Church teaches these secondary truths definitively with infallibility as well.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger explains the nature of the debate of papal infallibility well:

The primacy of the Successor of Peter was always believed as a revealed fact, although until Vatican I the discussion remained open as to whether the conceptual elaboration of what is understood by the terms ‘jurisdiction’ and ‘infallibility’ was to be considered an intrinsic part of revelation or only a logical consequence. On the other hand, although its character as a divinely revealed truth was defined in the First Vatican Council, the doctrine on the infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff was already recognized as definitive in the period before the council.

On the other hand, as Ratzinger explained in the same document, Pope John Paul II definitively proclaimed that ordination is reserved to men alone, but did not proceed to a dogmatic definition. While we know this doctrine is definitively true and proclaimed infallibly, the debate is still open as to whether this is a truth revealed by God, or a logical consequence of the dogmas relating to the constitution of the Church and the nature of the priesthood.

This whole document is a really good read on the topic of the Magisterium:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Thank you Genesis et al- very helpful.

 

[Eucharisted]

Prior to my very recent return to the Church, I found that my confusion/irritation with Catholicism was this idea of “later” declared doctrine (like Infallibility in 1870), or atleast my perception of it.

Since the Holy Spirit guides the Church, why is it that not all doctrines were declared at the same time?

I like Jesus’ answer: “You cannot bear all things now, but when he comes, the Spirit of Truth will guide you into all truths.”

And that’s what God has been doing ever since Pentecost.

 

[Della]

Ok, that helps, but what about Immaculate Conception? From what I remember, St. Thomas Aquinas opposed it- he wouldn’t have if it had been official doctrine.

This is one area I still struggle with.

Those theologians who opposed the IC weren’t opposed in the sense that they thought it impossible or outside the faith to believe it, but rather because they couldn’t see how it could be reconciled to other Church teachings and/or what they understood of biology, etc. They were theologians, not the Magisterium. The Magisterium listens to the arguments theologians and then decides in councils what the truth of the matter is and why. It’s a process of discernment, not just a matter of God telling us everything all at once, which he doesn’t do.

Why he doesn’t is open to speculation, but I think it’s because there are some things that are needed for some ages more than others. This is because the philosophies and cultures of the world keep shifting. I believe it was St. Louis Marie de Montfort who wrote that Marian doctrine was needed more in the ages following the very early Church than in the beginning because men’s hearts (in Christendom) had generally begun to cool towards God. I cite this example to say that God has his timing and his way of doing things that we can’t always understand. It often takes a great saint to see what God is doing while the rest of us just wonder why.