When dogma is defined.

[Peter_J]

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.

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

I think that what you and I (and Ralphinal) are disagreeing about here is really just a technical point.

Anything that has been dogmatically defined is a mandatory belief, but not every mandatory belief has been dogmatically defined.

It is something that is clearly set out in Scripture. You can’t get a stronger definition than that.

We weren’t suggesting that the clear statement of the Resurrection in Scripture is somehow “weaker” than a dogmatic definition; it simply doesn’t fit the technical definition (no pun intended) of a dogmatic definition. (Just like when we say that the first Ecumenical Council was in 325 A.D., we are by no means implying that the Council of Jerusalem was a “lesser” council.)

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

One must accept all the teachings in Scripture because it is God’s word, and we are called to follow every word that proceeds from God. So if one were to reject the Bible on the principle that it was developed outside the lives of the apostles (which is what the OP is arguing against), then one is rejecting Jesus Christ Himself. If any later development is to be rejected as “unnecessary” then the Bible is unnecessary. There is a difference in not knowing the canon, and rejecting it because it was a later development. Taking the OP’s premise to its logical conclusion is to reject the Bible.

 

[Peter_J]

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

No, dogmatic definitions don’t work retroactively. I will attempt to explain why …

Consider again the doctrine of the I.C. As already discussed, there’s a significant “change in circumstances” today as compared with the 13th century. When Pope Pius IX issued his dogmatic definition, he made a judgment about those circumstances, but it’s important to keep in mind that the dogmatic definition is itself a part of the change of circumstances.

More specifically, at any time after the dogmatic definition was made, people could look back at it and say “That speech Pius IX made was a dogmatic definition regarding the doctrine of the I.C.” (at least in principle; cf. my statement about the news not reaching everyone at the same time) – whereas before 1854, people couldn’t look forward to it saying “A dogmatic definition is going to be made in 1854.” (Even if Pope Benedict XVI told me that he was absolutely determined to issue a dogmatic definition one year from today, I still could not say for certain that he was going to do so. There’s always the possibility of a change of heart, or even that there could be a different Pope in a year.)

I guess the situation in 1853, with regard to the I.C., might be compared with the current situation with regard to Mary as “Queen of Heaven”. I.e. it was “what Catholics believe but never yet dogmatically defined”.

Bottom line, the circumstances aren’t the same before the dogmatic definition (even one hour before) as they are after, so it can’t be said to apply retroactively.

 

[SyCarl]

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.

What heresies were threatening the faith in 1854, 1870 and 1954?

 

[ralphinal]

What heresies were threatening the faith in 1854, 1870 and 1954?

Off the top of my head, protestantism .

Actually, each of these would be a response to a specific one. The IC, for example, as a response to those who said that the BVM committed sin, may not have even believed in Jesus, and amy very well be in hell now. The Assumption was to spell out that her Body and Soul was taken into heaven, as that we being doubted.

AS far as what does it matter, that is another question all together.

 

[SyCarl]

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?

This is a prime problem I have with Sacred Tradition and development of doctrine. Did Jesus keep His promise that the Holy Spirit would teach all things to the Apostles? Yes, Jesus doesn’t lie so the Apostles must have had all the teachings. Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit teach so obscurely that the Apostles didn’t understand what they had learned? No because Jesus said the Spirit would guide them into all truth. Or did the Apostles teach obscurely or hold something back? How is it possible for the Church, centuries later, to understand some truth that the Apostles didn’t? Given these questions, does Sacred Tradition really represent the Apostles’ teaching?

 

[LilyM]

This is a prime problem I have with Sacred Tradition and development of doctrine. Did Jesus keep His promise that the Holy Spirit would teach all things to the Apostles? Yes, Jesus doesn’t lie so the Apostles must have had all the teachings. Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit teach so obscurely that the Apostles didn’t understand what they had learned? No because Jesus said the Spirit would guide them into all truth. Or did the Apostles teach obscurely or hold something back? How is it possible for the Church, centuries later, to understand some truth that the Apostles didn’t? Given these questions, does Sacred Tradition really represent the Apostles’ teaching?

No actually He DIDN’T quite say it that way - the correct phrase is someting to the effect of ‘lead you into all truth’. And by leading them and their successors, our Popes and Bishops, to Jesus, who IS all truth, it did and does.

Doesn’t matter whether or not the Apostles EXPLICITLY knew every item of dogma, they certainly knew Jesus, and in knowing Him knew it all implicitly at least.

In our case the difference is that more of it is explicit rather than implicit - but that’s a distinction without a difference. It’s like saying Jesus gave them a different thing in giving them an acorn which contained implicitly everything that an oak tree is and has, when He has given us the mature tree that came from that very same acorn.

Have you read John Henry Cardinal Newman - he wrote on the development of doctrine.

 

[SyCarl]

One must accept all the teachings in Scripture because it is God’s word, and we are called to follow every word that proceeds from God. So if one were to reject the Bible on the principle that it was developed outside the lives of the apostles (which is what the OP is arguing against), then one is rejecting Jesus Christ Himself. If any later development is to be rejected as “unnecessary” then the Bible is unnecessary. There is a difference in not knowing the canon, and rejecting it because it was a later development. Taking the OP’s premise to its logical conclusion is to reject the Bible.

This seems a strange position for a Catholic when Catholicism denies scripture alone. We are always told the early Christians couldn’t read or afford the Bible. It is said that even if we didn’t have the Bible that Sacred Tradition would contain all the Deposit of Faith. I fail to see then how knowledge of the canon can be required as an article of faith.

Or perhaps scripture alone is a development of doctrine that came with the printing press and better education.

 

[SyCarl]

No actually He DIDN’T say that - the correct phrase is ‘lead you into all truth’. And by leading them and their successors, our Popes and Bishops, to Jesus, who IS all truth, it did and does.

Doesn’t matter whether or not the Apostles EXPLICITLY knew every item of dogma, they certainly knew Jesus, and in knowing Him knew it all implicitly at least.

In our case the difference is that more of it is explicit rather than implicit - but that’s a distinction without a difference. It’s like saying Jesus gave them a different thing in giving them an acorn which contained implicitly everything that an oak tree is and has, when He has given us the mature tree that came from that oak.

Actually He said both.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
(John 14:26 NASB)

"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
(John 16:13 NASB)

So did the Spirit teach them all things or not?

 

[LilyM]

So did the Spirit teach them all things or not?

Of course. Teaching can be implicit as well as explicit. And leading them to Jesus, in and of itself, was exactly the same thing as teaching them all things, since HE is Truth (all knowledge) incarnate.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This seems a strange position for a Catholic when Catholicism denies scripture alone. We are always told the early Christians couldn’t read or afford the Bible. It is said that even if we didn’t have the Bible that Sacred Tradition would contain all the Deposit of Faith. I fail to see then how knowledge of the canon can be required as an article of faith.

Or perhaps scripture alone is a development of doctrine that came with the printing press and better education.

My post is made to show the logical conclusion of your premise, not mine. Your demand for all God’s truth to be exhausted explicity by Apostles kills the Bible, not to mention some other fairly universal principles like the Incarnation and Trinity…

 

[MarcoPolo]

Actually He said both.

So did the Spirit teach them all things or not?

The Spirit used them as the foundation of the faith, as Scripture says. Of course, foundations are to be built upon…

 

[Peter_J]

SyCarl,

Reading your last couple of posts … well, it’s getting hard to tell what this thread is about. You say

This is a prime problem I have with Sacred Tradition and development of doctrine. Did Jesus keep His promise that the Holy Spirit would teach all things to the Apostles? Yes, Jesus doesn’t lie so the Apostles must have had all the teachings.

The Catholic Church has never denied that. On the contrary, in order for a teaching to be dogmatically defined (which was what we were talking about, wasn’t it?) it has to have been a doctrine of the faith right along. To quote Cardinal Newman:

“the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum, through the channel either of Scripture or Tradition”

I fail to see then how knowledge of the canon can be required as an article of faith.

It isn’t an article of faith. (Once again, this seems a divergence from the purpose of this thread. Or has the purpose of the thread changed? )

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl,

Reading your last couple of posts … well, it’s getting hard to tell what this thread is about. You say

The Catholic Church has never denied that. On the contrary, in order for a teaching to be dogmatically defined (which was what we were talking about, wasn’t it?) it has to have been a doctrine of the faith right along. To quote Cardinal Newman:

“the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum, through the channel either of Scripture or Tradition”

It isn’t an article of faith. (Once again, this seems a divergence from the purpose of this thread. Or has the purpose of the thread changed? )

The point of the thread is I fail to see how a later defined dogma can be necessary for belief. If, as you say, it is a doctrine of faith, was it not necessary to believe it all along? Which again points to my question, what of those who didn’t believe it before it was formally defined?

 

[Peter_J]

The point of the thread is I fail to see how a later defined dogma can be necessary for belief. If, as you say, it is a doctrine of faith, was it not necessary to believe it all along? Which again points to my question, what of those who didn’t believe it before it was formally defined?

I was just thinking of something else that may help.

A few months ago, another Protestant net-user (I don’t remember who) explained to me his understanding of James 2:24, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Namely, he understood it to mean that works enable us to see that someone is justified (not that we are justified by works).

My point is not to argue over whether that’s the right interpretation or not, but rather that I think “dogmatic definitions” are similar. Specifically, I would say that Ralphinal has faith, and I would also say that St. Thomas Aquinas had faith. Not that I can supernaturally view their souls; I can only deduce their faith by the way it is manifested in their words and actions.

But the kicker, of course, is that the particular form that manifestation takes is affected by a person’s circumstances. To go back to my earlier hypothetical, if Aquinas had fallen asleep and woken up 700 years later, than I would expect – given a reasonable amount of time to interact with modern-day Catholics (as I said before, it’s not like dogmatic definitions float through the air to people’s brains) – that he would come to believe in the I.C. That is to say, his faith (which he had already) would be manifested in a different way, as a result of different circumstances. (If not, then I would have to suspect that his faith had in fact been defective all along.)

 

[Peter_J]

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

Ideally yes. But that doesn’t mean that a dogmatic definition is invalid if it isn’t in response to a heresy/thread.

 

[Peter_J]

Ideally yes. But that doesn’t mean that a dogmatic definition is invalid if it isn’t in response to a heresy/-]thread/-] threat.

 

[Peter_J]

Leaving aside, for a moment, the particulars like what doctrines were contained in the Deposit of Faith to begin with, and how many valid dogmatic definitions have their been … I think that Catholics and Protestants can agree that our situation is always changing, in big and small ways. But I’d say that one of the significant differences between Catholics and Protestants is that we Catholics see some of those changes as being (if you will) Unforgettable. That is to say, permanent and irreversible.

The 1854 dogmatic definition would be one example of an unforgettable change, because no matter how much time passes, the post-1854 world will always be different from the pre-1854 world in at least one respect. Namely, people living after 1854 can always (in principle, mind you) look back and say “That statement on the IC doctine was a dogmatic definition.”

For an example of a change that isn’t irreversible, consider the “Co-redemptrix” movement. That clearly represents a change of circumstances: there are currently millions of Catholics lobbying to have “Co-redemptrix” dogmatically defined, whereas in earlier times there were few Catholics (or none, depending how for back you go) calling for that. But is that change “unforgettable”? I would say No (excepting if a new dogmatic definition is, in fact, proclaimed) because there’s no guarantee that the movement will even exist in a century or two.

So there you have, from the Catholic p.o.v., an example of an irreversible change, and an example of a “reversible” (or “non-irreversible” ) change. But for the Protestant mind (correct me if I’m wrong) there are no irreversible changes. Eh?