P
Peter_J
Guest
Should every truth of the faith be dogmatically defined?
- Status
R
ralphinal
Guest
I hold to the school of thought that there is no reason to define it unless it is being challenged. For example, the Trinity has been dogmatically defined. The Ressurection of Christ has not.
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
Are there any dogmas that you question if they should of been made dogmas? Would you like to see some new dogmas?
OP- “Should every truth of the faith be dogmatically defined?”
No…
God Bless!
R
ralphinal
Guest
I have never really thought about either question. My gut answer to the first is no, and the second is not that I am aware of.
If I think about it, I may change on either one.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Every Truth cannot be defined.
It is impossible.
There is great danger in even presuming the possibility of defining all Truth, or any Truth beyond what has been revealed for us by Christ through the Apostles.
It can be compared to building the tower of Babel. This pursuit of Truth beyond revelation only leads to confusion and strife, and division among the Faithful where there should not be and otherwise would not be. We end up speaking different theological languages for no reason other than our own prideful estimation of our ability to wrench Truth out of theories. Speculations should remain just that. And more modern assertions…even popular ones…may not to pass the test of time.
From my perspective the late definition of dogma is only the formalizing of the prevailing theological opinion of one short age or another, derived mostly from human reason, not God’s revelation.
We should let the musings over doctrine not essential for salvation rest in their places, and not impose them upon the general community.
It is impossible.
There is great danger in even presuming the possibility of defining all Truth, or any Truth beyond what has been revealed for us by Christ through the Apostles.
It can be compared to building the tower of Babel. This pursuit of Truth beyond revelation only leads to confusion and strife, and division among the Faithful where there should not be and otherwise would not be. We end up speaking different theological languages for no reason other than our own prideful estimation of our ability to wrench Truth out of theories. Speculations should remain just that. And more modern assertions…even popular ones…may not to pass the test of time.
From my perspective the late definition of dogma is only the formalizing of the prevailing theological opinion of one short age or another, derived mostly from human reason, not God’s revelation.
We should let the musings over doctrine not essential for salvation rest in their places, and not impose them upon the general community.
Hi Ralph,
What about the idea of dogmatically defining the BVM as “co-redemptrix”?
Jon
Well said.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hesychios,
I pretty much agree with what you’re saying, except that I don’t consider Papal Infallibility, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, etc., to be “beyond what has been revealed for us by Christ through the Apostles”. Rather I consider them to be truths that were somehow contained in the faith from the beginning. (BTW, excaliber’s post, the one that I quoted above, was in response to my statement that it was unwise for Vatican I to dogmatically define Papal Infallibility.)
P
Peter_J
Guest
That’s what came to my mind when I read emeraldcoast’s question.
Personally I think to do so would be another big mistake.
(BTW, I like what Joseph Ratzinger said about the matter in 2000:
See rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/05/must-read-mary-as-mediatrix-of-grace.html)
Thanks, Peter.
That is would I had understood his stance to be. I appreciate your opinion and agree with it. I also value Ralphinal’s viewpoint so I hope he responds.
Jon
G
Genesis315
Guest
First off, it bears pointing out that it is not ok to disagree with some revealed truth as longas it is not solemnly defined. For example, was it ok to deny Christ’s divinity before 325? Of course not.
Believing something contrary to what God has revealed is never a good thing. Definitively proclaiming a truth in a solemn manner (“defining”) does not make something a revealed truth or give a new revealed truth, rather it confirms for us that it is and always has been a revealed truth which we should have been believing all along.
As has been pointed out, this is done when there is confusion or debate over whether a particular proposition has or has not been revealed by God. The proclamation of the truth is done by the whole Church over and over–we don’t proclaim a truth once and then forget it. We have never been told by the Prophets, Christ, or His Apostles make any parts of God’s revelation optional for expediency or in order to make the deposit of faith easier to accept.
It is proclaimed, however, in a special manner by the Pope in union with his fellow bishops (often gathered in Council) when the rest of the Church has a special need for it to be done that way so that everyone can be on the same page proclaiming the same truth with one mind and one voice.
Again, it is never wrong to proclaim a truth that God has revealed for our good or for the Magisterium to definitively confirm such a truth (or condemn errors not revealed by God, for that matter). The Pope and bishops may wait to hear sufficient debate before making their defintive confirmation which by the power of the Holy Spirit will be infallibly true (the Holy Spirit leads, He doesn’t carry, however, which is why the Pope consults with his bishops, does things in union with them, they all listen to the arguments of theologians, etc.). But, to put off proclaiming the Gospel for fear of how others may receive it is not a good reason.
Part of the legitimate debate is how best to explain the truth so that the faithful understand it properly. As then Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out, calling Mary “Co-Redemptrix” may not convey the intended truth as well as other titles which Catholics already cling to and profess in unity.
Believing something contrary to what God has revealed is never a good thing. Definitively proclaiming a truth in a solemn manner (“defining”) does not make something a revealed truth or give a new revealed truth, rather it confirms for us that it is and always has been a revealed truth which we should have been believing all along.
As has been pointed out, this is done when there is confusion or debate over whether a particular proposition has or has not been revealed by God. The proclamation of the truth is done by the whole Church over and over–we don’t proclaim a truth once and then forget it. We have never been told by the Prophets, Christ, or His Apostles make any parts of God’s revelation optional for expediency or in order to make the deposit of faith easier to accept.
It is proclaimed, however, in a special manner by the Pope in union with his fellow bishops (often gathered in Council) when the rest of the Church has a special need for it to be done that way so that everyone can be on the same page proclaiming the same truth with one mind and one voice.
Again, it is never wrong to proclaim a truth that God has revealed for our good or for the Magisterium to definitively confirm such a truth (or condemn errors not revealed by God, for that matter). The Pope and bishops may wait to hear sufficient debate before making their defintive confirmation which by the power of the Holy Spirit will be infallibly true (the Holy Spirit leads, He doesn’t carry, however, which is why the Pope consults with his bishops, does things in union with them, they all listen to the arguments of theologians, etc.). But, to put off proclaiming the Gospel for fear of how others may receive it is not a good reason.
Part of the legitimate debate is how best to explain the truth so that the faithful understand it properly. As then Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out, calling Mary “Co-Redemptrix” may not convey the intended truth as well as other titles which Catholics already cling to and profess in unity.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Genesis315,
I agree with you that it would be wrong to think that we need to believe only what has been dogmatically defined.
But on the other hand, it would be wrong to think that every revealed truth demands assent. For example, I personally believe that the Immaculate Conception is a divinely revealed truth (I’m not trying to start an argument about whether it is or not, I’m just telling you what I believe), but history clearly shows that it wasn’t always agreed upon. Indeed as late as the 13th century we see St. Thomas Aquinas, who didn’t believe in the IC.
I agree with you that it would be wrong to think that we need to believe only what has been dogmatically defined.
But on the other hand, it would be wrong to think that every revealed truth demands assent. For example, I personally believe that the Immaculate Conception is a divinely revealed truth (I’m not trying to start an argument about whether it is or not, I’m just telling you what I believe), but history clearly shows that it wasn’t always agreed upon. Indeed as late as the 13th century we see St. Thomas Aquinas, who didn’t believe in the IC.
Has someone been saying that we should put off proclaiming the Gospel for fear of how others may receive it? Not that I would be surprised if someone’s been say that (I am very much aware that CAF posters say pretty crazy things sometimes), but I haven’t read all the recent threads, so I’m not really sure what you are responding to.
H
Hesychios
Guest
That’s a theory I had once adopted myself, although I can find no evidence to support it…still a lot of people subscribe to the idea (or want to believe it).
I guess it was just wishful thinking on my part at the time.
Adopting the rationale may be necessary for someone to be able to accept the newer theological constructs, but that does not satisfy the Vincentian Canon.
Your mileage may vary.
R
ralphinal
Guest
This one is simple for me. I agree with what Ratzinger said about it. But, even before that statement was made, I did not like the use of the term for a couple of reasons.
First, in the English of America, co- means along with and equal to. When I was first exposed to the concept, I was confused by it. I do understand the meaning of the word to be a subserviant with not equal, but the confusion still would be there.
Second, and in my mind more important, what is the value in defining this? Does it add to our understanding or clarify anything? No. It does not. All that it will do is placate a group of people who push the envelope of hyper-dulia.
Third, is there a need, in the overall battle of heresy, to clearly define what the term means and REQUIRE all Catholics to accept it? No. You can be a perfectly good Catholic and never worry about it. No heresy that exists will be combated by this.
WE should not forget that the main reason to define something is to better say what it is not in terms of heresy. That is one reason that there is no need to try to define everything
Thanks, Ralph. Hope I didn’t inadvertantly hang you out to dry on this, as I know there are some who will strongly disagree with you.
Jon
R
ralphinal
Guest
Not a problem. Most of my hate mail comes from other Catholics, anyway.
See, I am a heretic loving turncoat who is willing to discuss and see both sides. Everyone knows that a good Catholic helps stack the wood to burn you people without hearing the charges first.
Hope it rains.
mainly because I think there are some noncatholics here (one recently banned) who wouldn’t help me with a thimble of water. 
Seriously, you’re the good Catholic.
Jon
H
Hesychios
Guest
I hope you are joking…Hope it rains.
S
sambos671
Guest
Yeah, I think it can cause problems. In order to keep the Oneness of God Origen and others were consider Heretics because they tried so hard to maintain the consept of One God rather than three which the orthodox bishops who supported trinity were not teaching either but it sounded like it to the eastern churches. BTW I think that this is the issue with Mary being called Coredemtrix on the other thread. In order to protect theotokos from protestants taking that title from Mary an extreme view to counter act it was developed.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I know what you mean. It is a problem with the lack to communicate and a lack of education that creates the need for definitions.
- Status