When dogma is defined.

[LilyM]

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.

The ECFs who mention the issue are fairly much unanimous that Mary was sinless throughout her whole life - ‘ever pure and spotless’ or words to that effect. So effectively they agreed with the doctrine, although the label of ‘Immaculate Conception’ is not one that they used, nor one that the Orthodox today choose to use.

The Assumption has been explicitly discussed since probably the 3rd century. Mind you there are hints of it in Chapter 12 of Revelation - the woman seen in heaven, crowned with stars etc etc, who bears Christ, the ruler of all nations, has certainly been associated with Mary for that long (who else could it be?).

But you have to remember that even the earliest explicit mentions that we can find of the Assumption present it as an ALREADY being well-accepted belief. ALL the existing churches of the day accepted these discussions of it as truth without debate, and held feasts in honour of Mary’s Dormition/Assumption from pretty shortly thereafter. The belief was not really challenged in any way until the Reformation, in fact.

 

[LilyM]

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.

Of course ALL ‘doctrinal drifts’ are challenged! Catholic scholars keep an INCREDIBLY close eye on such things - to an almost ridiculous level.

Case in point - there are those until recently who argued that the English mass of today is heretical and invalid, purely because during the recounting of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper the English says the two words ‘for all’ at one point, whereas the Latin which preceded it is most properly translated as ‘for many’. The Pope had to issue a statement explicitly saying the English translation of those two words was a valid alternative meaning.

So a ‘shift’ as major as people suddenly believing that Mary was sinless or bodily assumed into heaven would absolutely be noticed and challeneged if viewed as heretical!

 

[MarcoPolo]

The early Christians had all they needed to believe in for salvation.

The early Christians believed all that was revealed to the Church in their time the same as any subsequent generation. If the goal here is to minimize what was needed in every generation, then one can discard the Bible, because anyone who was alive in 33 A.D. and died prior to the first book of Scripture was written in 50 A.D. or so didn’t need the Bible to be saved. So did God change the criteria of what one must believe?

Then, the Church didn’t know exactly what books were Scripture for a couple/few centuries. Origen believed there was only one letter by Peter that was Scripture. So once the entire New Testament was identified as divinely inspired, a true Christian must except it, no? Otherwise we can get rid of it? But if a true Christian must accept the entire New Testament as inspired, then are they held to a different standard of belief than the Christian living in 40 A.D.? You see the slippery slope?

As a Church, as a singular body, we mature, and learn. As a human being, must an infant believe and understand the Resurrection? Must a five year old who now understands and accepts the Resurrection be able to understand salvation by grace through faith working in charity? So too, does the Church, as She matures, grasp God’s singular revelation better and better through time. We cannot have an envy of the early Church because they “had to learn less.” If the Spirit chooses to reveal a deeper understanding of “sound doctrine” (as Paul exhorts us to identify), we are by no means at liberty to deny the Spirit and insist on the understanding the Church had in Her infancy.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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 oak is larger than an acorn it grew from - but the acorn contained all that the oak now is. The Apostles had the acorn - the oak is not yet grown, but is growing.​

What is held, is the same thing - the difference is in what is seen to be implied. If you look at a pin with the naked eye, you see one thing; see it under a microscope at 10x magnification, & you see more - & the greater the magnification,the more detail you can see. The pin is as it was when first seen - the change is in the ability to see it. Dogmatisation is like magnification, or like focussing upon what was already there to be seen - it doesn’t change what is there, but helps one to see better what is to be seen.

The Church needs to learn, if it is to see aright - this takes time; so although nothing remains that God is going to reveal to mankind, a lot remains after the giving of this final revelation that the Church has to see in that revelation. There is no revelation outside Christ: He is its content & its “boundary” - it does not follow from this, that to understand this is to see everything that is revealed in Christ. This is true even with men - the first few minutes of a friendship don’t reveal as much as fifty years of it. So, but in a more excellent way altogether, with this Friendship; because in this, we are talking about a Divine love; & this has many effects upon revelation & the Church & its life that cannot be anticipated or verbalised because they are Divine. What revelation & so on is not, is mere intellectualism - it’s far too alive for that; because it is Divine, creative, & very much more.

That’s all I can think of for now - hope it helps, such as it is.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Carl et al,

Good thread. This is a pretty major topic, and I doubt that we’re going to say everything that ought to be said about it on an internet-thread. But I would like to respond to one or two points …

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.

You’re quite right in saying that the Deposit of Faith does not change.

But the circumstances in which we live do change.

Consider this analogy: Is it excusable for a Christian to not consider ‘the Epistle to the Hebrews’ part of the Bible? I would have to say that the answer is “No” if that Christian lived in the year 500, but “Yes” if that he/she lived in the year 300.

It can be the way even with doctrines. For example, it would not be excusable for me to believe that Mary wasn’t conceived immaculately, but it was excusable for St. Thomas Aquinas living in the 13th century.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

That’s not entirely correct.

Evangelical Protestants tend to categorize things as either dogma or opinion (or “essential” and “non-essential”, to use their preferred terminology); but Catholics don’t see things in such black-and-white terms. The fact that something hasn’t been dogmatically defined doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s just opinion, as per Ralphinal’s example that the Resurrection has never been dogmatically defined.

Another example you should consider is Transubstiation: it has never been dogmatically defined, but it isn’t “optional”, since the Council of Trent anathematized anyones who rejects it. (It’s possible that Transubstiation will be dogmatically defined in the future, although it’s hard to imagine any need, given the anathema that is already in effect.)

Or take again the case of the Immaculate Conception. As I said before, it would not be excusable for me to believe that Mary wasn’t conceived immaculately, but it was excusable for St. Thomas Aquinas living in the 13th century. Hence, circumstances are different now than they were 800 years ago. But did the change happen overnight? Certainly not. Rather, the dogmatic definition in 1854 put the “finishing touches” if you will on a development of doctrine that took centuries.

 

[SyCarl]

Hi Carl et al,

Good thread. This is a pretty major topic, and I doubt that we’re going to say everything that ought to be said about it on an internet-thread. But I would like to respond to one or two points …

You’re quite right in saying that the Deposit of Faith does not change.

But the circumstances in which we live do change.

Consider this analogy: Is it excusable for a Christian to not consider ‘the Epistle to the Hebrews’ part of the Bible? I would have to say that the answer is “No” if that Christian lived in the year 500, but “Yes” if that he/she lived in the year 300.

It can be the way even with doctrines. For example, it would not be excusable for me to believe that Mary wasn’t conceived immaculately, but it was excusable for St. Thomas Aquinas living in the 13th century.

They are not the same thing. You need never know the books of the Bible to know the Gospel message. As many Catholics are very fond of pointing out, you can learn the Christian faith without ever reading the Bible. Someone has always known that Hebrews was Scripture, if only the author and recipient. As such the truth in it can be passed on even if person learning doesn’t know where it came from.

Dogmas like the Immaculate Conception are different. Pope Pius IX decreed that everyone must believe it.

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

Ineffabilis Deus
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

It has never been necessary to know Hebrews is in the Bible and it still isn’t. It had not been necessary to believe in the Immaculate Conception before 1854, but now it is. Why has someone who doesn’t believe it now suffer “shipwreck in the faith” but someone who didn’t believe before doesn’t meet that fate?

The truth doesn’t change. If it is true, it has always been true. Why does it suddenly become necessary to believe it because the Pope decrees it? Has God changed his requirements or has the Church failed Thomas Aquinas by not telling him what he had to believe?

 

[SyCarl]

That’s not entirely correct.

Evangelical Protestants tend to categorize things as either dogma or opinion (or “essential” and “non-essential”, to use their preferred terminology); but Catholics don’t see things in such black-and-white terms. The fact that something hasn’t been dogmatically defined doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s just opinion, as per Ralphinal’s example that the Resurrection has never been dogmatically defined.

Another example you should consider is Transubstiation: it has never been dogmatically defined, but it isn’t “optional”, since the Council of Trent anathematized anyones who rejects it. (It’s possible that Transubstiation will be dogmatically defined in the future, although it’s hard to imagine any need, given the anathema that is already in effect.)

Or take again the case of the Immaculate Conception. As I said before, it would not be excusable for me to believe that Mary wasn’t conceived immaculately, but it was excusable for St. Thomas Aquinas living in the 13th century. Hence, circumstances are different now than they were 800 years ago. But did the change happen overnight? Certainly not. Rather, the dogmatic definition in 1854 put the “finishing touches” if you will on a development of doctrine that took centuries.

It is wrong to say that the Resurrection has never been defined. It is something that is clearly set out in Scripture. You can’t get a stronger definition than that.

Transubstantiation was defined by the Council of Trent.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct13ce.htm

This is in fact another example of my point. Did God change His requirements when the Council defined this? What of someone who regarded the Real Presence as a mystery prior to Trent, or who believed it was only symbolic? Are they retroactively condemned by this definition or is it a case of trying to define something that is beyond our ability to comprehend.

I apply this to both Catholics and Protestants who try to define or overdefine things like this.

 

[mfbukowski]

Dogmas like the Immaculate Conception are different. Pope Pius IX decreed that everyone must believe it.

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Ineffabilis Deus
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

So is this public or private revelation? It sounds like “public” but it can’t be- right? Because that is closed.

But it can’t be “private” because clearly it is to be believed by all the faithful under penalty of being anathematized.

Just asking.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The truth doesn’t change. If it is true, it has always been true. Why does it suddenly become necessary to believe it because the Pope decrees it?

A couple of us just got done explaining exactly this.

 

[SyCarl]

Because God had not so yet revealed it?

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.

God has not revealed it? Has not public revelation ceased? If so God has already revealed everything. The Church doesn’t understand it yet? Is that not a failure on the part of the Church if it is necessary to believe it?

 

[ralphinal]

God has not revealed it? Has not public revelation ceased? If so God has already revealed everything. The Church doesn’t understand it yet? Is that not a failure on the part of the Church if it is necessary to believe it?

God has revealed, to some degree, everything that we need. Some of it must be explained further as to what it IS NOT, such as with the Trinity 1500 years ago.

The Church ONLY defines dogma when there are heresies that threaten the faith.

 

[Peter_J]

The truth doesn’t change. If it is true, it has always been true. Why does it suddenly become necessary to believe it because the Pope decrees it? Has God changed his requirements or has the Church failed Thomas Aquinas by not telling him what he had to believe?

The way I see it, even when someone truly has faith, he/she is still dependent on other human beings to learn the specific doctrines of the faith. In particular, I don’t doubt that Aquinas really had faith, but he wasn’t aware that Mary was immaculately conceived because he lived in a time when that was a debated point. But if a Christian living today doesn’t believe in the I.C., then all things being equal* that’s an indication of a defect in that person’s faith.

Imagine, if you will, that Aquinas pulled a Rip Van Winkle and woke up today. Would I expect him to instantaneously believe in the I.C. upon awakening? Certainly not. (It’s not like dogmatic definitions float in the air, and people learn from them by osmosis. ) What I would expect is that, as he interacted with modern-day people and learned about what he missed during his 700+ year sleep, he would eventually decide that he had been wrong and that Mary was immaculately conceived after all. If, after a reasonable period of time, he still rejected the I.C., then that would be an indication of a defect in his faith.

• I don’t think I’m up to the task of fully explaining what the qualifier “all things being equal” does to that statement; I’ll just point out one small technical point. Namely, when the Immaculate Conception was dogmatically defined in 1854, very few people knew about it immediately. Indeed, as there was as yet no radio, only those physically present heard the proclamation live. No doubt the news spread quickly – I would imagine that many European newspapers included it in their next edition, thanks to the telegraph. (There weren’t any transatlantic telegraph cables in 1854, so obviously the info would take longer to reach America.) But the point is simply that the “change of situation” that took place in 1854 was not an instantaneous change.

 

[Non_Serviam]

In reading this thread, I’ve been better able to understand why the idea makes me uncomfortable.

What seems to be implied is that a believer of today has a more precise understanding of the faith than an Apostle would, since the Apostles didn’t have the benefit of these precise definitions, or if they did, didn’t share them with the church in such a way that councils didn’t have to cobble them together at a later date.

Considering that the Apostles spent years with Jesus, this idea just seems wrong somehow. And yet, if I look at any academic discipline it would be considered perfectly normal for knowledge to advance and more precision to be obtained. Hence my discomfort.

Thoughts?

 

[Peter_J]

BTW, I hope you’ll forgive the slowness of my replies. I takes me longer to write these posts, because of the difficulty/complexity the topic. In fact, I’ll just make one more small comment now, and then leave the rest of what I want to say till morning.

They are not the same thing. You need never know the books of the Bible to know the Gospel message. As many Catholics are very fond of pointing out, you can learn the Christian faith without ever reading the Bible. Someone has always known that Hebrews was Scripture, if only the author and recipient. As such the truth in it can be passed on even if person learning doesn’t know where it came from.

Dogmas like the Immaculate Conception are different. Pope Pius IX decreed that everyone must believe it.

I agree with everything in those two paragraphs. I was just using that analogy to illustrate how circumstances can change. (Perhaps I took the analogy a little too far by the way I used the same word, “excusable”, in both cases.)

 

[MarcoPolo]

God has not revealed it? Has not public revelation ceased? If so God has already revealed everything. The Church doesn’t understand it yet? Is that not a failure on the part of the Church if it is necessary to believe it?

These questions lead me to believe you did not read my post or Gottle’s. For starters, it neglects to reconcile the canon of Scripture problem…

 

[MarcoPolo]

What seems to be implied is that a believer of today has a more precise understanding of the faith than an Apostle would, since the Apostles didn’t have the benefit of these precise definitions, or if they did, didn’t share them with the church in such a way that councils didn’t have to cobble them together at a later date.

Which apostle left us the canon of the New Testament?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Which apostle left us the canon of the New Testament?

Must one know the canon correctly in order to be saved? I’m not saying there isn’t information that is useful to know, but certain items have been accorded a “must know” status.

 

[LilyM]

God has not revealed it? Has not public revelation ceased? If so God has already revealed everything. The Church doesn’t understand it yet? Is that not a failure on the part of the Church if it is necessary to believe it?

No - a child isn’t a failure merely because it has to grow in understanding over time. Even Jesus did the same (at least in his human nature). Although it would be a failure if as an adult that person understood no better than he or she did as a child, and it is necessary for a person to deepen their understanding as he or she grows older.

Nor is an acorn a failure merely because it isn’t a fully mature oak, although it would be a failure if it didn’t grow INTO that oak (think of the scriptural metaphor of the mustard seed growing into a tree/bush).

 

[ralphinal]

Why don’t we look at this another way.

What is the first recorded tiem that the Church decided dogma that was not specifically spelled out in the teachings of Christ?