Can doctrine develop?
#21
(06-01-2009, 07:13 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: May I point out that the point of me quoting this text was that we might learn from it; not use it to confirm our own ideas.

First let me say I wasn't using the quote to confirm my own ideas. I was just surprised to see someone else using it.

But I've been thinking about this - and thinking - and I'm more troubled. If I followed the logic of some of these arguments to their conclusions and what it says about Vatican II, I would have to dust my hands of the Catholic Church and just leave. If today's magisterium can be wrong, then yesterday's magisterium can be wrong. And all the quotes from previous popes and councils don't mean a thing. I understand not every teaching is infallible, but I thought the Holy Ghost was supposed to protect even non-infallible teachings from error. If Dignitatus Humanae contains doctrinal errors, then haven't the gates of hell prevailed?

Don't answer that.

- Lisa
Reply
#22
(06-01-2009, 08:42 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(06-01-2009, 07:13 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: May I point out that the point of me quoting this text was that we might learn from it; not use it to confirm our own ideas.

First let me say I wasn't using the quote to confirm my own ideas. I was just surprised to see someone else using it.

I only meant that we need to read and understand what the Church teaches, and not just see some things that confirm some of our own ideas. I wasn't saying you were doing this, but it is quite common in these forums.

"SCG" Wrote:But I've been thinking about this - and thinking - and I'm more troubled. If I followed the logic of some of these arguments to their conclusions and what it says about Vatican II, I would have to dust my hands of the Catholic Church and just leave.

No, you wouldn't. You'd cling to what you know is orthodox as St. Vincent of Lerins teaches:

"St. Vincent of Lerins" Wrote:"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic, as the very force and meaning of the word shows, which comprehends everything almost universally. And we shall observe this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is plain that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent if in antiquity itself we eagerly follow the definitions and beliefs of all, or certainly nearly all, priests and doctors alike."

"What if some novel contagion seek to infect the whole Church, and not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit."

"SCG" Wrote:If today's magisterium can be wrong, then yesterday's magisterium can be wrong.

Novelty has appeared. It is a fact. It must be rejected now ... before it can be explained (by the Church) later. Don't get the cart before the horse.

"SCG" Wrote:And all the quotes from previous popes and councils don't mean a thing. I understand not every teaching is infallible, but I thought the Holy Ghost was supposed to protect even non-infallible teachings from error. If Dignitatus Humanae contains doctrinal errors, then haven't the gates of hell prevailed?

Don't answer that.

Sorry, Lisa. :)  But the tradition of the Church means EVERYTHING. Cling to it and know by that tradition that the gates of Hell CANNOT prevail.

Reply
#23
Oh Melita, Melita!  :-*
Reply
#24
(06-01-2009, 09:15 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Novelty has appeared. It is a fact. It must be rejected now ... before it can be explained (by the Church) later.

I understand that novelties and abuses can creep into the church - liturgical dance, altar girls, banal liturgy, etc. And I understand that certain individual clergymen can preach unorthodox sermons from the pulpit. But we're talking about Church councils and church documents now. We're talking about the Magisterium - THE POPE IN UNION WITH THE WORLD'S BISHOPS. Even though VII gave us no solemn declarations, it gave us (or at least claimed to give us) a more accurate and "developed" understanding of the pastoral nature of the Church. It must be given assent of faith to the degree that we believe the Holy Spirit protected it from teaching error.

- Lisa

Removed the last two lines because I don't want to make this a SSPX vs SSPV issue. - Lisa
Reply
#25
(06-01-2009, 10:39 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(06-01-2009, 09:15 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Novelty has appeared. It is a fact. It must be rejected now ... before it can be explained (by the Church) later.

I understand that novelties and abuses can creep into the church - liturgical dance, altar girls, banal liturgy, etc.

We're not talking about abuses. Why do you think the SSPX "discussions" must be doctrinal in nature? They realize the root problem is not "abuses".

"SCG" Wrote:And I understand that certain individual clergymen can preach unorthodox sermons from the pulpit.

We're not talking about that either.

"SCG" Wrote:But we're talking about Church councils and church documents now.

Yes, we are.

"SCG" Wrote:We're talking about the Magisterium - THE POPE IN UNION WITH THE WORLD'S BISHOPS. Even though VII gave us no solemn declarations, it gave us (or at least claimed to give us) a more accurate and "developed" understanding of the pastoral nature of the Church.

And that "development" is a novelty and must be rejected. There is no "pastoral" nature of the Church that is distinct from the traditional nature and constitution of the Church (defined many times as a body and a visible thing).The traditional doctrine on the membership of the Church is the basis for the presentation in Mystici Corporis. Four requirements for membership are given: those who are baptized, who profess the Faith integrally, who submit to the lawful authority of the Pope and hierarchy in communion with him, and who have not been excluded from the Church by excommunication. Thus, heretics, schismatics, infidels, and excommunicates are excluded from the Church, even though they are baptized. Heretics and excommunicates are two different categories. In the case of the former (and schismatics as well), they are excluded by their own actions; in the case of excommunicates, they are excluded by the Church's judgment, in punishment of crimes committed.

"SCG" Wrote:It must be given assent of faith to the degree that we believe the Holy Spirit protected it from teaching error.

You are saying two things here:

1. We must give the ordinary magisterium our assent.

2. By faith we believe the Holy Ghost protects the Church from doctrinal [dogmas] and [disciplines (the doctrinal component)]error.

This does not tell us to accept a novel teaching on the nature of the Church nor a novel teaching on religious liberty. It does not tell us that because we believe the Church cannot teach error, we must pretend the facts of the crisis are not really facts.

In addition, Vatican II did openly deny defined dogma. Religious liberty was condemned in an ex cathedra definition by Pope Pius IX, as can be read in Quanta Cura, wherein a clear formula of definition is contained (We by Our Apostolic Authority, etc.). The teaching of Vatican II is almost verbatim the contrary of what was condemned.

Reply
#26
(06-01-2009, 08:42 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(06-01-2009, 07:13 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: May I point out that the point of me quoting this text was that we might learn from it; not use it to confirm our own ideas.

If I followed the logic of some of these arguments to their conclusions and what it says about Vatican II, I would have to dust my hands of the Catholic Church and just leave.

I see what you're saying, but that's not really true. That would imply that the DNA is subject to the body's injuries. The body can and has injured itself in the past, but it does not change the instructions of the DNA. The body has been guaranteed immortality; it won't die. But that doesn't mean it can't be severely abused.

(06-01-2009, 08:42 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: If today's magisterium can be wrong, then yesterday's magisterium can be wrong.

No, because the Magisterium of today is teaching against what it has always taught. And what it has always taught is congruent with the DNA of Truth as evidenced by antiquity. It is the will of the Church, its mind, which is allowing the body of the Church to injure itself in the name of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost might allow this to happen, and He is still with the Church, but the Holy Ghost is not guiding the Church toward error. If the Church moves toward error, it is not at the instruction of the Holy Ghost.


(06-01-2009, 08:42 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: And all the quotes from previous popes and councils don't mean a thing. I understand not every teaching is infallible, but I thought the Holy Ghost was supposed to protect even non-infallible teachings from error.


Which are the teachings that you say are protected? 9/10 of the bishops (and some historians say even the Pope) conceded to or taught the Arian heresy, but the Church was still alive. The Ordinary Magisterium has erred before. If I remember correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the only infallible statement of the council was that the council was non-infallible.

Don't lose Faith! The consequences aren't worth it.
Reply
#27
Let's talk about previous councils then. What would make their teachings less "novel" when they were convened? At some point a doctrine had to be "new" - er  - a development and/or clarification of an article of the Faith. So you're saying we don't have to give assent of faith unless there has been a solemn declaration?

What about previous papal documents, bulls, encyclicals etc? Or councils that were "only" pastoral in nature? What kind of weight do they carry today?

What about Canon Law? Disciplines can't change either?

- Lisa
Reply
#28
INPEFESS Wrote:No, because the Magisterium of today is teaching against what it has always taught.

But how can it do that? LOL

Quote: And what it has always taught is congruent with the DNA of Truth as evidenced by antiquity. It is the will of the Church, its mind, which is allowing the body of the Church to injure itself in the name of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost might allow this to happen, and He is still with the Church, but the Holy Ghost is not guiding the Church toward error. If the Church moves toward error, it is not at the instruction of the Holy Ghost.

And what are the implications of this? I'm not going to say it. Don't worry about me losing faith, INP. If anything I'll just "lose" the Theological Debate forum and mosey on back to "My Favorite Bible Character" thread. LOL

:grandma:

- Lisa
Reply
#29
(06-01-2009, 11:42 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Let's talk about previous councils then. What would make their teachings less "novel" when they were convened? At some point a doctrine had to be "new" - er  - a development and/or clarification of an article of the Faith. So you're saying we don't have to give assent of faith unless there has been a solemn declaration?

No. Didn't you read what I just wrote?

"SCG" Wrote:What about previous papal documents, bulls, encyclicals etc?

Quanta Cura maybe? That's precisely what we are talking about.

"SCG" Wrote:Or councils that were "only" pastoral in nature? What kind of weight do they carry today?

Such as?

"SCG" Wrote:What about Canon Law? Disciplines can't change either?

Disciplines are subject to a secondary or indirect infallibility, as the theologians explain:

"Van Noort, Christs Church" Wrote:Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.

By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.

2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ's doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (16)

Corollary

The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals. But it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that all the historical facts which are recorded here and there in the lessons of the Roman Breviary, or all the explanations of scriptural passages which are used in the homilies of the Breviary must be taken as infallibly true.(17) As far as the former are concerned, those particular facts are not an object of infallibility since they have no necessary connection with revelation. As for the latter, the Church orders their recitation not because they are certainly true, but because they are edifying.

Canon Law can change, but the truthes behind it do not change and cannot be contradicted. Any other reading is either legalistic or concedes some evolution of TRUTH.

Quote:Dz. 1800 [The true progress of knowledge, both natural and revealed] .For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding [can. 3]. "Therefore . . . let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.''
Reply
#30
(06-01-2009, 11:41 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: The body can and has injured itself in the past, but it does not change the instructions of the DNA. The body has been guaranteed immortality; it won't die. But that doesn't mean it can't be severely abused.

INP, could you give examples of how the magisterium has injured itself in the past? I'm a so-so student of Church history but I don't recall that chapter.

- Lisa
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)