When dogma is defined.

[SyCarl]

In 1854 the Catholic Church defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in 1870 that of Papal Infallibility, and in 1950 the dogma of the Assumption. What happened to people who lived and died before these dogmas were defined and did not believe them? I know that they are said to be theologoumena before they are proclaimed; theological opinions that could be believed but did not have to be. This does not appear satisfactory to me. What changed at the time the dogmas were defined?

If a dogma is defined to be true it must always have been true; the definition is not what makes it true and truth does not change. If it always has been true why does it suddenly become necessary to believe it when previously it was not necessary? Did God change what He requires to be believed? This does not seem reasonable as we are told throughout Scripture that God does not change.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
(Numbers 23:19 NASB)

“Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”
(1 Samuel 15:29 NASB)

"For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
(Malachi 3:6 NASB)

Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.
(James 1:17 NASB)

Also why would God suddenly make things more difficult in the sense of increasing what must be believed at any point of time?

If the Church is right in defining that the dogma must be believed now, and God does not change His requirements, shouldn’t that mean that it was always necessary to believe the dogma? If so, has the Church not failed previous generations by not telling them everything that they had to believe?

If it was not necessary to believe that dogma in the past, and God does not change His requirements, has the Church not erred in telling us that the dogma must now be believed?

 

[MarcoPolo]

If it always has been true why does it suddenly become necessary to believe it when previously it was not necessary? Did God change what He requires to be believed?

Because God had not so yet revealed it? I don’t see a problem here. The people of the Old Covenant were able to be saved even though they lived without believing in Jesus, no? I think of Jesus healing the blind man after 2 “attempts”. First the blind man sees blurry and people look like “trees” to him. Then Jesus grants him another stage of sight, and the man sees more clearly. God has always revealed Himself in stages from the time of Adam onward.

Here’s how the Catechism defines faith in its simplest summary:*CCC#1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.” For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” Living faith “work through charity.”*So until a truth is revealed, which includes developments of our understanding of the single deposit of faith, it is not in our capacity as His children to believe them without Him so revealing them.

 

[mark_a]

In 1854 the Catholic Church defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in 1870 that of Papal Infallibility, and in 1950 the dogma of the Assumption. What happened to people who lived and died before these dogmas were defined and did not believe them? I know that they are said to be theologoumena before they are proclaimed; theological opinions that could be believed but did not have to be. This does not appear satisfactory to me. What changed at the time the dogmas were defined?

If a dogma is defined to be true it must always have been true; the definition is not what makes it true and truth does not change. If it always has been true why does it suddenly become necessary to believe it when previously it was not necessary? Did God change what He requires to be believed? This does not seem reasonable as we are told throughout Scripture that God does not change.

Also why would God suddenly make things more difficult in the sense of increasing what must be believed at any point of time?

If the Church is right in defining that the dogma must be believed now, and God does not change His requirements, shouldn’t that mean that it was always necessary to believe the dogma? If so, has the Church not failed previous generations by not telling them everything that they had to believe?

If it was not necessary to believe that dogma in the past, and God does not change His requirements, has the Church not erred in telling us that the dogma must now be believed?

Church teachings are often times are not dogmatically defined until challenged.

Dogmas are teachings that can’t be denied.

We are not expected to understand them perfectly.

 

[Vincent]

**Christ’s promise to bestow the Holy Spirit, who “will guide you into all truth,” **constantly sustains the Church on her way. Thus, in the course of her history, certain truths have been defined as having been acquired though the Holy Spirit’s assistance and are therefore perceptible stages in the realization of the original promise. Other truths, however, have to be understood still more deeply before full possession can be attained of what God, in his mystery of love, wished to reveal to men for their salvation.
—Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

[E]ven if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
—Catechism of the Catholic Church

No doctrine is defined till it is violated.
—John Henry Newman
​

 

[Non_Serviam]

In 1854 the Catholic Church defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in 1870 that of Papal Infallibility, and in 1950 the dogma of the Assumption. What happened to people who lived and died before these dogmas were defined and did not believe them? I know that they are said to be theologoumena before they are proclaimed; theological opinions that could be believed but did not have to be. This does not appear satisfactory to me. What changed at the time the dogmas were defined?

If a dogma is defined to be true it must always have been true; the definition is not what makes it true and truth does not change. If it always has been true why does it suddenly become necessary to believe it when previously it was not necessary? Did God change what He requires to be believed? This does not seem reasonable as we are told throughout Scripture that God does not change.

Also why would God suddenly make things more difficult in the sense of increasing what must be believed at any point of time?

If the Church is right in defining that the dogma must be believed now, and God does not change His requirements, shouldn’t that mean that it was always necessary to believe the dogma? If so, has the Church not failed previous generations by not telling them everything that they had to believe?

If it was not necessary to believe that dogma in the past, and God does not change His requirements, has the Church not erred in telling us that the dogma must now be believed?

Not that I am normally one for defending church dogma, but using the logic you put forth, God did a disservice to Israel by sending Jesus when He did-if God is unchanging then the Incarnation wasn’t something that had to be believed since it wasn’t there before.

Looking at it that way I’m sure you can see that you out to give this idea a re-thinking.

 

[SyCarl]

Not that I am normally one for defending church dogma, but using the logic you put forth, God did a disservice to Israel by sending Jesus when He did-if God is unchanging then the Incarnation wasn’t something that had to be believed since it wasn’t there before.

Looking at it that way I’m sure you can see that you out to give this idea a re-thinking.

Reviewing what I said, I recognize that I should have made the qualification that what must be believed depends on where someone is during the period of God’s revelation. There have been different stages of revelation from God. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation has ceased. I agree with this as Jude tells us the faith was handed down once for all.

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
(Jude 1:3 NASB)

That revelation, being once for all, does not change. If that revelation is not understood it does not change the truth that was once revealed.

The early Christians had all they needed to believe in for salvation. They did not need what has now been defined. There has been no new revelation since that time. Does God change what must now be believed because the Church says something more must be believed?

My point remains. If something in the completed revelation must be believed, it must have always been necessary from the time that revelation was completed. If the Church only defines it later, it has failed earlier Christians. If it did not have to be believed previously, I do not believe that God changes His requirements.

This does not mean that what is defined is not true. It might be. But it is not necessary truth as the required truth does not change.

 

[ralphinal]

Reviewing what I said, I recognize that I should have made the qualification that what must be believed depends on where someone is during the period of God’s revelation. There have been different stages of revelation from God. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation has ceased. I agree with this as Jude tells us the faith was handed down once for all.

That revelation, being once for all, does not change. If that revelation is not understood it does not change the truth that was once revealed.

The early Christians had all they needed to believe in for salvation. They did not need what has now been defined. There has been no new revelation since that time. Does God change what must now be believed because the Church says something more must be believed?

My point remains. If something in the completed revelation must be believed, it must have always been necessary from the time that revelation was completed. If the Church only defines it later, it has failed earlier Christians. If it did not have to be believed previously, I do not believe that God changes His requirements.

This does not mean that what is defined is not true. It might be. But it is not necessary truth as the required truth does not change.

Maybe this example will help

The Church has never defined the Ressurection of Christ as dogma. Now, must it be accepted as a part of the Christian faith? Yes, without a doubt. Is it clearly in the Bible? yes. Is that why it has not been defined? No. It is because no one has claimed to be Christian AND claimed that it did not occure until the last 100 years, and even other nutjobs call those people crazy.

Until heresy develops, the Church tries to keep from defining things, partially because of the reason that you see.

 

[RobHom]

Is it not true that often times various items are defined as “dogma” in response to “heresy”…in that the making of dogma defines the true belief in the Church to prevent poisoning of heretical views?

 

[ralphinal]

Is it not true that often times various items are defined as “dogma” in response to “heresy”…in that the making of dogma defines the true belief in the Church to prevent poisoning of heretical views?

that is always how it has seemed to me

I may be wrong, but even the Council of Jerusalem defined dogma in response to an issue

 

[LilyM]

Reviewing what I said, I recognize that I should have made the qualification that what must be believed depends on where someone is during the period of God’s revelation. There have been different stages of revelation from God. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation has ceased. I agree with this as Jude tells us the faith was handed down once for all.

That revelation, being once for all, does not change. If that revelation is not understood it does not change the truth that was once revealed.

The early Christians had all they needed to believe in for salvation. They did not need what has now been defined. There has been no new revelation since that time. Does God change what must now be believed because the Church says something more must be believed?

My point remains. If something in the completed revelation must be believed, it must have always been necessary from the time that revelation was completed. If the Church only defines it later, it has failed earlier Christians. If it did not have to be believed previously, I do not believe that God changes His requirements.

This does not mean that what is defined is not true. It might be. But it is not necessary truth as the required truth does not change.

Who says that God doesn’t permit us to learn about Himself progressively even now, as He permits us to progressively learn about the natural world He has created? Doesn’t mean the truths we now know weren’t there all along, just that we progressively get better at looking for them and in understanding what we are looking at and for.

If He didn’t see fit to make explicit in scripture or apostolic writings the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception or what have you, then surely He has similarly failed by not making explicit in their days the laws of gravity, the existence and purpose of penicillin, or the existence of the planet Pluto. These scientific laws are just as surely part of ‘ALL truth’, no?

Would you say the scientific laws are not necessary for us to know? Not so. We can certainly make some pretty woeful blunders if we start thinking (God forbid) that application of mercury can cure venereal disease as they used to in the middle ages, or that we can jump off tall buildings and fly by attaching bird feathers to our arms and flapping really hard!

 

[SyCarl]

Maybe this example will help

The Church has never defined the Ressurection of Christ as dogma. Now, must it be accepted as a part of the Christian faith? Yes, without a doubt. Is it clearly in the Bible? yes. Is that why it has not been defined? No. It is because no one has claimed to be Christian AND claimed that it did not occure until the last 100 years, and even other nutjobs call those people crazy.

Until heresy develops, the Church tries to keep from defining things, partially because of the reason that you see.

However, the resurrection is something that has always been believed since revelation ended. It is something that is clearly revealed in that revelation.

There had long been differences of opinion on the Immaculate Conception particularly among the Scholastics. Why was it necessary to define it in 1854 if those previously did not have to believe it.

I think there is a great difference in what we need to know and what we want to know and think we need to know. Just because it is possible to know something doesn’t mean we need to know it. It is not necessary to know all possible truth. Was Jesus right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous? One of the three choices is true but is it necessary to know which?

 

[SyCarl]

Who says that God doesn’t permit us to learn about Himself progressively even now, as He permits us to progressively learn about the natural world He has created? Doesn’t mean the knowledge isn’t there all along, just that we progressively get better at looking for it and understanding what we are looking at and for.

If He didn’t see fit to make explicit the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception or what have you, then surely He has similarly failed by not making explicit earlier the laws of gravity, the existence and purpose of penicillin, or the existence of the planet Pluto. These scientific laws are just as surely part of ‘ALL truth’, no?

Would you say the scientific laws are not necessary for us to know? Not so. We can certainly make some pretty woeful blunders if we start thinking (God forbid) that application of mercury can cure venereal disease as they used to in the middle ages, or that we can jump off tall buildings and fly by attaching bird feathers to our arms and flapping really hard!

Scientific laws are not necessary for salvation. If God makes explicit something like the Assumption, does that not, in reality, amount to new revelation?

 

[Non_Serviam]

However, the resurrection is something that has always been believed since revelation ended. It is something that is clearly revealed in that revelation.

There had long been differences of opinion on the Immaculate Conception particularly among the Scholastics. Why was it necessary to define it in 1854 if those previously did not have to believe it.

I think there is a great difference in what we need to know and what we want to know and think we need to know. Just because it is possible to know something doesn’t mean we need to know it. It is not necessary to know all possible truth. Was Jesus right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous? One of the three choices is true but is it necessary to know which?

The topic is one that has concerned me as well-if we look at the book of Acts the entry requirements for the church were quite simple. Now most any denomination has a creed or statement of belief of a significant length. I often wonder what would have happened to the Apostles if they had appeared after Nicea and hadn’t known the proper formulas.

It does seem that God has permitted “knowledge creep” of a sort in the church. At times I wonder if the focus was initially on orthopraxy since it could be verified, but later as the faith became more intellectually focused, orthodoxy took over and led to this situation where right believing must take place. I wonder this, because I think that it’s likely that many believers can say the right things about the Trinity, but I’m sure in the devotional lives or private thoughts that they likely bounce back and forth between elements of tritheism and modalism in trying to “believe right”.

What I’m trying to say is I understand your struggle.

 

[LilyM]

Scientific laws are not necessary for salvation. If God makes explicit something like the Assumption, does that not, in reality, amount to new revelation?

Scientific laws are nonetheless, I would assert, part of the ‘all truth’ that Christ promised. Truth includes the truths of our natural world.

Now I would put it to you that revelation ended in the apostolic age in the sense that in possessing Christ Himself, who IS truth (whether He implicitly or explicitly reveals that truth to us) we possess the INFINTE fullness of revelation. Christ’s truth IS infinite, however and so there is no end to the discoveries that can be made in possessing Him. And He intends us to keep on learning and progressing towards His infinite Truth until the end of days.

It’s rather like someone giving you a teeny-weeny tree sapling and telling you how and where to plant it and rear it so that it will grow into a fine tall tree. The sapling certainly doesn’t look the same as the mature tree, but nonetheless they ARE the same, no? Or you as a baby containing all the potentiality of the grown adult - same person. Your bones, your organs, your eyes, your hair, your DNA. Your voice even, though you haven’t yet learned how to use it to speak.

 

[mfbukowski]

In 1854 the Catholic Church defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in 1870 that of Papal Infallibility, and in 1950 the dogma of the Assumption. What happened to people who lived and died before these dogmas were defined and did not believe them? I know that they are said to be theologoumena before they are proclaimed; theological opinions that could be believed but did not have to be. This does not appear satisfactory to me. What changed at the time the dogmas were defined?

If a dogma is defined to be true it must always have been true; the definition is not what makes it true and truth does not change. If it always has been true why does it suddenly become necessary to believe it when previously it was not necessary? Did God change what He requires to be believed? This does not seem reasonable as we are told throughout Scripture that God does not change.

Also why would God suddenly make things more difficult in the sense of increasing what must be believed at any point of time?

If the Church is right in defining that the dogma must be believed now, and God does not change His requirements, shouldn’t that mean that it was always necessary to believe the dogma? If so, has the Church not failed previous generations by not telling them everything that they had to believe?

If it was not necessary to believe that dogma in the past, and God does not change His requirements, has the Church not erred in telling us that the dogma must now be believed?

An excellent question

 

[LilyM]

An excellent question

This from a religion where God apparently gave a whole new testament to Joseph Smith? And whose prophets and elders to this day, if I understand rightly, chop and change teaching constantly? Or have I wrongly been informed that Mormons believe in continuing revelation through the current church leadership?

That would certainly increase the amount that a modern Mormon must believe, as opposed to when the LDS were just starting, surely.

 

[mfbukowski]

Not that I am normally one for defending church dogma, but using the logic you put forth, God did a disservice to Israel by sending Jesus when He did-if God is unchanging then the Incarnation wasn’t something that had to be believed since it wasn’t there before.

Looking at it that way I’m sure you can see that you out to give this idea a re-thinking.

And what is the difference between an “interpretation” or “modification” and a downright “change”?

 

[Non_Serviam]

And what is the difference between an “interpretation” or “modification” and a downright “change”?

I don’t really know-check out my later post. I was simply pointing out that his OP was stated in a less than effective way, and he restated it in a clearer fashion.

 

[mfbukowski]

that is always how it has seemed to me

I may be wrong, but even the Council of Jerusalem defined dogma in response to an issue

So what if there was “doctrinal drift” that was not perceived as a “heresy”, and was never challenged for whatever reason?

Some may say that the growing importance of Mary in Catholic theology could be an instance of this. Would the ECF’s agree with the assumption and immaculate conception? I am asking because I honestly don’t know – I am not trying to challenge anything.

 

[mfbukowski]

This from a religion where God apparently gave a whole new testament to Joseph Smith? And whose prophets and elders to this day, if I understand rightly, chop and change teaching constantly? Or have I wrongly been informed that Mormons believe in continuing revelation through the current church leadership?

That would certainly increase the amount that a modern Mormon must believe, as opposed to when the LDS were just starting, surely.

I really don’t want to derail this thread. I am going away now.