Many people are MISSING the boat

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pope St. Pius X says, “the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way”.

You can come to a better understanding of a doctrine over time, but it cannot be any different than has been handed down in years prior.
 
If doctrine doesn’t develop, then how, for example, was the Filioque added to the Latin Rite version of the Creed, formulated in 381 AD? The Filioque wasn’t formally added until 1014 AD to the Latin Rite Creed.

Note—The original Nicene Creed was from 325. The 381 version added to the original at the Council of Constantinople. The Filioque was added in 1014, but only for the Latin Rite Church. The Eastern Rites rejected it. It is still not part of the Creed used in most Eastern Catholic Churches. (correcting for accuracy)
 
Last edited:
If doctrine does not develop, why did it take nearly 700 years and six ecumenical councils to nail down just who Jesus was and how to talk about him correctly?

-Fr ACEGC
 
(cont’d) and lastly from the New Liturgical Movement:
Many changes were made to the corpus of antiphons, and new antiphons were introduced even where older ones might just as well have been retained, or borrowed from the Monastic Breviary. The psalms of Sunday remained almost unchanged from Lauds to Compline, and yet, of the 13 antiphons for these hours in the Breviary of St. Pius V, eight were removed, and new antiphons put in their place. Slight verbal changes were made to two others, and only three remain untouched. On the other hand, since the Breviary had to be completely reprinted anyway, the opportunity might have been taken restore the hymns of the original Pian Breviary, and permit the optional use of the Urban VIII hymns, if anyone could be found who really wanted to keep them. Instead, the original hymns are preserved only as an appendix in the newly re-arranged Antiphonale, for those who retained the use of the older text by indult or immemorial custom.
Click to expand...
This completely refutes your argument of a “slender volume”, since the entire antiphonary, hardly a slender volume, had to be overhauled.
 
That’s why we have a forum. To learn and to educate. We must not fall for things that are not accurate though
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I just threw out all my Bruce lee books. Reject alternate spirituality!
 
It’s one thing to come to a better understanding of a doctrine. But when someone says “development” of doctrine, it implies a change to that doctrine. It is a change in a doctrine (or its meaning) that is forbidden by the Church.
 
Well, of course! But, did he prohibit increased understanding which builds on that solid foundation?

No.
 
How about we all just agree to the following:
  • Changing doctrine to suit “the times” = bad
  • Deepening our understanding of doctrine = good
And move on!
 
I found a clarification in the Catholic Encyclopedia in the article on Revelation:

Catholic Encyclopedia, Revelation:
It may however be further asked, whether the Christian Revelation does not receive increment through the development of doctrine. During the last half of the nineteenth century the question of doctrinal development was widely debated. Owing to Guenther’s erroneous teaching that the doctrines of the faith assume a new sense as human science progresses, the Vatican Council declared once for all that the meaning of the Church’s dogmas is immutable (De Fide Cath., cap. iv, can. iii). On the other hand it explicitly recognizes that there is a legitimate mode of development, and cites to that effect (op. cit., cap. iv) the words of Vincent of Lirins: “Let understanding science and wisdom [regarding the Church’s doctrine] progress and make large increase in each and in all, in the individual and in the whole Church, as ages and centuries advance: but let it be solely in its own order, retaining, that is, the same dogma, the same sense, the same import” (Commonit. 28).
 
Certainly modernism must be expelled from the faith, as it is worldly rather than spiritual. As to science, it reveals how God has worked through creation - it does not and cannot refute or contradict anything known about God through revelation.

Fr. Robert Spitzer hammers on this constantly.
 
Doctrine can develop and mature. Led by the Holy Spirit.

This is how dogma develops.
 
Eddie

Vahttps://www.catholic.com/tract/can-dogma-developtican II on Development

In answering these questions, the Church facilitates the development or maturing of doctrines. The Blessed Virgin Mary models this process of coming to an ever deeper understanding of God’s revelation: “But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). It’s important to understand that the Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it “invent” new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been “once for all delivered to the saints.” New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up.

Vatican II explained, “The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her” (Dei Verbum 8).

From

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top