What happens when the Church infallibly defines a doctrine or dogma?

[SyCarl]

What happens when the Pope or the Catholic Church makes an infallible pronouncement concerning a dogma or doctrine? What happens to those who didn’t accept that dogma prior to its promulgation, particularly when the decree states that it has always existed as a revealed doctrine?

It seems to me that there are three possibilities.

1. The doctrine has always existed as something that must have been believed.
2. Up until it was defined the doctrine was only a theologoumenon, a theological opinion that did not have to be believed until then.
3. The doctrine still does not have to be believed.

The very fact that it was felt necessary to define the doctrine would rule out the option that it is still not necessary to believe it.

If it had only been a theologoumenon, what happens when it is changed to an infallible dogma that must be believed? Has God changed what He requires to be accepted with Divine Faith to accord with what the Church has now defined? If so, what has happened to the immutability of God? Why would He require people now to believe more than it was necessary for people to believe before the definition? Do God’s requirements change? If they do not change then the doctrine must be something that always had to be believed. If that is the case, has the Church not failed those people who lived before it came to the conclusion that the doctrine must be believed? If it had to be believed, why didn’t the Church tell them it had to be believed? If it did not have to be believed, why did it suddenly become necessary to believe it?

 

[SyCarl]

No replies? This is one of the reasons, even the main one that I cannot accept the Catholic Church’s claim to infallibility.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

When a doctrine is infallibly declared, it is not a new doctrine that God suddenly revealed to the Pope or the Council. It is a product of public revelation, of which there has been nothing new since the time of the apostles.

However, that doesn’t preclude the notion of development of doctrine. Consider the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Not too many people thought of it in itself until the fourth century when it was being defined. But the Fathers, especially men like St. Gregory of Nazianzus, argued that the Holy Spirit is God because of the baptismal formula. The notion that the Holy Spirit is God was always present in the Church, but it was not fully understood until nearly 400 years later!

 

[SyCarl]

When a doctrine is infallibly declared, it is not a new doctrine that God suddenly revealed to the Pope or the Council. It is a product of public revelation, of which there has been nothing new since the time of the apostles.

However, that doesn’t preclude the notion of development of doctrine. Consider the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Not too many people thought of it in itself until the fourth century when it was being defined. But the Fathers, especially men like St. Gregory of Nazianzus, argued that the Holy Spirit is God because of the baptismal formula. The notion that the Holy Spirit is God was always present in the Church, but it was not fully understood until nearly 400 years later!

So, what happened to people who did not believe that the Holy Spirit is God? What happened to someone who was born and died an Arian before the Council of Nicea?

 

[pete_29]

No replies? This is one of the reasons, even the main one that I cannot accept the Catholic Church’s claim to infallibility.

But you can accept your own infallibility. If you don’t, then you have to accept that your interpretation of the Bible may be flawed. If you accept that your own interpretation of the Bible may be flawed, then you have to accept that what you believe, in essence, your Faith may be wrong. If you doubt your faith, then you don’t have any.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

So, what happened to people who did not believe that the Holy Spirit is God? What happened to someone who was born and died an Arian before the Council of Nicea?

I don’t know. I’m not God. They’re duty was to accept the truth as was understood. In general, I would say that those who did not know better would not be held accountable.

 

[John_Hiner]

What happens when the Pope or the Catholic Church makes an infallible pronouncement concerning a dogma or doctrine? What happens to those who didn’t accept that dogma prior to its promulgation, particularly when the decree states that it has always existed as a revealed doctrine?

It seems to me that there are three possibilities.

1. The doctrine has always existed as something that must have been believed.
2. Up until it was defined the doctrine was only a theologoumenon, a theological opinion that did not have to be believed until then.
3. The doctrine still does not have to be believed.

The very fact that it was felt necessary to define the doctrine would rule out the option that it is still not necessary to believe it.

If it had only been a theologoumenon, what happens when it is changed to an infallible dogma that must be believed? Has God changed what He requires to be accepted with Divine Faith to accord with what the Church has now defined? If so, what has happened to the immutability of God? Why would He require people now to believe more than it was necessary for people to believe before the definition? Do God’s requirements change? If they do not change then the doctrine must be something that always had to be believed. If that is the case, has the Church not failed those people who lived before it came to the conclusion that the doctrine must be believed? If it had to be believed, why didn’t the Church tell them it had to be believed? If it did not have to be believed, why did it suddenly become necessary to believe it?

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear SyCarl:

It is difficult for me to reply to your question, because it seems to imply some basic differences in our understandings of salvation. Keeping this difficulty in mind, please be patient with the length and clumsiness of this response.

It seems to me that there are at least two significantly different ways to approach questions of knowledge or “belief.” One might be compared to an inventory of propositions checked for compliance with a master list. The other is more directed toward actions and purity of intentions; rather than an inventory of doctrines kept for their own sake, the second view takes doctrines as directed toward action.

This second view is closer, I think, to the Catholic view. It assumes a direct and important tie between belief and works.

Now, if “belief” were merely a list of propositions to be memorized, then it would matter little what the propositions were. The effort to memorize them might be seen as the point of the matter, and the content of the propositions might be meaningless, or so obscure in meaning that one would not pretend to understand them. One might, in such a view, think of salvation as a sort of quiz where a person is asked to recite the propositions and “accept them” whether he understands them or not. In fact, accepting them without understanding might be considered a mark of “faith” or “surrender” in this view.

In the second view, which I take to be the Catholic view, one is expected to act in Christ, to love as the Lord loved, and to praise God with every act, word, and intention. Doctrine, in this view, is important because it gives content to these ideas.

For example, consider the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity. If one held the mistaken view that God was one, in the sense of being a unitary person, one would assume a particular view of love. A unitary “god” who made physical creation for his own glory would give a self-centered image of the basis of reality. At the root of creation would be self-service, because “god” made everything for himself. A person who tried to love with this model as the basis for his understanding would approach others in a self-serving way. Love would become a sort of project, doing things to the beloved because of the return promised to the lover, in imitation of “god.” If the Magisterium saw Christians taking this view (as the Arians did to some extent) correction would be needed.

Continued . . .

 

[John_Hiner]

Continued . . .

The doctrine that God is one, but within Him are three co-equal and mutually loving Persons, corrects the “self-centered idea of love.” In light of this doctrine, one’s view of God’s love is radically changed. With this doctrine in mind, one can understand the less-clear idea, “God made the world for His own glory,” in an “un-selfish” way; one can now see that, “God the Father made the world as a gift and token of His love for the Son; and God the Son wishes that the world be made a fitting gift for the Father.” Under this “unfolded” or “developed” doctrine a person seeking to love as God loves can now see that love, properly understood, is not self-interest but generous concern for the beloved. The older saying remains true, God did make the world for His glory, however, this was done generously and not selfishly, as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity makes clear, when it is made explicit. What was previously clear, through the self-giving examples of the Apostles and other Martyrs, is now clear again, through the infallible definition of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

In this light, the Christian’s goal remains the same, to love as the Lord loved, however, the Faithful are aided in their efforts to do this, by being given a definite idea which helps them to discern what they should do and what attitudes to adopt to fulfill this commandment.

In this sense, newly defined doctrines are aids to performing what has always been required, by protecting the Faithful from new errors or misunderstandings that threaten to undermine their efforts.

Consider another case. So long as mothers and women were held in high esteem, because of their role in motherhood, all of the Faithful easily understood how to “honor their mothers” and how to “honor the Mother of the Lord.” However, in the modern era, as artificial “birth control” and Darwinian ideas of “eugenics” and “human breeding programs” became current, the dignity of women became a cloudy matter for people. In this context, some people began to regard women as mere vessels for “reproduction.” Test tubes were even imagined as possibly superior methods of “producing” children. In this context, what had been clear became foggy and new definitions were required.

Thus the infallible definition of the Immaculate Conception of Mary clarified for the Faithful the direct and pervasive importance of the human mother to the child. If the perfection of Christ demanded the purity of Mary as a precondition, the Faithful could not easily fall into the novel error of thinking that a test tube or “surrogate mother” could replace a child’s mother. Similarly, the definition of the Assumption of Mary clarified any mistaken notion that women had less dignity than men. By clearly reminding the Faithful that a woman had achieved the fullness of salvation, bodily resurrection, the Church guarded the Faithful from mistaking women as lacking dignity.

Hence, in what I take to be the Catholic view, the understanding of doctrine informs and guides the subtleties of action and the purity of intentions. Doctrines must be “unfolded” or “developed” and definitively clarified to preserve what has always been the Faith, not to add to or change its burdens, but to protect and teach those who are faced with new temptations and errors, precisely so that they can practice the Faith as it has always been done in Christ’s name and Spirit.

I hope this gives us some basis to discuss these matters in a useful way.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[ralphinal]

As a rule, dogmatic pronouncements are only made whne there is a contoversy about the topic. The one that you pointed out, the Godhood of the Holy Spirit, is a great example. The vast majority of such pronouncements have been by Ecumenical Councils, unless you count the canonization of saints (another topic altogether). Since the infallibility of the Pope was defined, there have only been a few pronouncements of dogma, the most striking of which is the Definition of the Assumption of Mary. I will confine this portion to that alone.

Basically, the Church has always held that she was assumed body and soul into heaven. We see it in the writings of the early Church Fathers AND in the EO Churches as well, showing that it was a part of the faith prior to the Great Scisim. Now, due to Protestant influences on the world, the pope decided to define what was meant by the dogma and clearly state what we believe as Catholics. I want to note that many early Protestants had no issue with the concept as well. That is one reason that nothing was done for a couple of centuries. Now, before the Dogmatic pronouncement, it is possible that Catholics did not know the teaching or care at all one way or the other. After it, however, we must accept it as theological fact as the Holy Spirit saw fit to have the pope make the statement.

Back to Arians, it all depends on why they believed it and how they came to it. In other words, only God knows.

If you retro-fit the dogma of Papal Infallibilty to prior pronouncements, you can see that it has been a limited use thing. Again, if you do not count cannonization of Saints, and depending on how strict you are on your assessment, it has been done somewhere between three and around 20 times. IN any event, the Pope has not used it to define dogma very often. Again, it has always been to clarify what we believe, not alter it or invent new rules from God.

 

[John_Detwiler]

So, what happened to people who did not believe that the Holy Spirit is God? What happened to someone who was born and died an Arian before the Council of Nicea?

Greetings, SyCarl:

I think the post that John Hiner made is helpful in laying out the groundwork of the questions you ask. As he says, one can imagine two approaches to why it is important to believe something. The first is that there is a checklist of things one must profess, but the beliefs have little to do with how one acts. The second is that what one believes has an effect on one’s life, and so it is important to hold the correct beliefs so that one will live and love as Christ does.

It is clearly true that what a person believes affects how he acts, and how a person acts is essential to his ability to live and love as Christ does. Heresies imply and lead to errors in love. Given that, your questions are interesting. What errors would be committed by someone who does not believe that the Holy Spirit is God?

God is love, and has been love since before anything else existed. What’s true of God must be true of love. If God is two persons, then that means love must be essentially binary, between two persons. The Father would love the Son only by doing things to the Son, but He could not do something with the Son. The same would be true of all love: one could not love by doing something with the beloved, only by doing something to the beloved, introducing a fundamental separation between lover and beloved. In truth, because God is a Trinity, then love includes both doing something to the beloved and with the beloved. The Father loves the Son by giving Himself to the Son, and by joining the Son in His gift to the Holy Spirit.

And what of the Arian before the Council of Nicaea? How does that belief affect his ability to love?

Arians believed that Jesus is man but not God. This basic belief contains the implication that God did not suffer the pain of living in the world as man, but instead sent someone else to suffer with men: that he did not, and does not, feel as man feels. The Arian therefore would think that love involves helping a person and giving him good things, but not feeling compassion, that is, feeling what he feels. In the Arian theory, the lover must always remains fundamentally separate from the beloved, as they believed God remained separate from man.

I assume that before these heresies arose, these errors were not pervasive, and so the Church did not need to aid the faithful by explicitly correcting them on a large scale. However, someone who erred in one of these ways about love would err at living and loving as Christ does, and so at best would less fully act as Christ, and at worst might fail completely.

This all makes dogma and its definition seem very important to the Christian life. I would like to hear if these replies have been of help.

Grace and peace to you.
John Detwiler

 

[mathematician]

But you can accept your own infallibility. If you don’t, then you have to accept that your interpretation of the Bible may be flawed. If you accept that your own interpretation of the Bible may be flawed, then you have to accept that what you believe, in essence, your Faith may be wrong. If you doubt your faith, then you don’t have any.

“The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.”

Do you have faith in the two times table?

 

[Exalt]

What happens when the Pope or the Catholic Church makes an infallible pronouncement concerning a dogma or doctrine? What happens to those who didn’t accept that dogma prior to its promulgation, particularly when the decree states that it has always existed as a revealed doctrine?

It seems to me that there are three possibilities.

1. The doctrine has always existed as something that must have been believed.
2. Up until it was defined the doctrine was only a theologoumenon, a theological opinion that did not have to be believed until then.
3. The doctrine still does not have to be believed.

The very fact that it was felt necessary to define the doctrine would rule out the option that it is still not necessary to believe it.

If it had only been a theologoumenon, what happens when it is changed to an infallible dogma that must be believed? Has God changed what He requires to be accepted with Divine Faith to accord with what the Church has now defined? If so, what has happened to the immutability of God? Why would He require people now to believe more than it was necessary for people to believe before the definition? Do God’s requirements change? If they do not change then the doctrine must be something that always had to be believed. If that is the case, has the Church not failed those people who lived before it came to the conclusion that the doctrine must be believed? If it had to be believed, why didn’t the Church tell them it had to be believed? If it did not have to be believed, why did it suddenly become necessary to believe it?

Have you ever read 1984?

Because I think we’re both thinking the same thing here…

 

[JMBNH]

I m be wrong here but I get the impression that someone disagreeing with the dogma before it is pronounced would be a material heretic but not a formal heretic. Thus they would not necessarily be culpable for their error and most certainly could be saved. For example St Cyprian of Carthage believed that baptism outside of the Catholic Church was invalid, which we now know to be wrong, but he is still a Saint

 

[John_Hiner]

“The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.”

Do you have faith in the two times table?

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Yes it is “faith” which underlies one’s confidence in the “two times table.” Philosophically, faith is more foundational than any human certainty based on either sensory perception or a priori apperceptions, since without the Faith, no certainty can be attained by human means beyond the self-consistency of particular conceptions. The truth (rather than mere validity) of such self-consistent conceptions cannot be secured except by Faith in Jesus Christ as the “bridge” between God and man.

Certainty is a fruit of faith, not its “opposite,” though they are different.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Quarles47]

No replies? This is one of the reasons, even the main one that I cannot accept the Catholic Church’s claim to infallibility.

Are you sure this is a “Reason” and not just an excuse

Where the Ego soars the Spirit flounders.