Can doctrine develop?
#31
Lisa,

Given the sweeping changes that V2 and Paul VI in it's aftermath made, consider what St. Thomas has said in the Summa about changing human (ecclesastical) law:

"Summa, St. Thomas" Wrote:Article 2. Whether human law should always be changed, whenever something better occurs?

Objection 1. It would seem that human law should be changed, whenever something better occurs. Because human laws are devised by human reason, like other arts. But in the other arts, the tenets of former times give place to others, if something better occurs. Therefore the same should apply to human laws.

Objection 2. Further, by taking note of the past we can provide for the future. Now unless human laws had been changed when it was found possible to improve them, considerable inconvenience would have ensued; because the laws of old were crude in many points. Therefore it seems that laws should be changed, whenever anything better occurs to be enacted.

Objection 3. Further, human laws are enacted about single acts of man. But we cannot acquire perfect knowledge in singular matters, except by experience, which "requires time," as stated in Ethic. ii. Therefore it seems that as time goes on it is possible for something better to occur for legislation.

On the contrary, It is stated in the Decretals (Dist. xii, 5): "It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), human law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, De Constit. Princip.] that "in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just."

Reply to Objection 1. Rules of art derive their force from reason alone: and therefore whenever something better occurs, the rule followed hitherto should be changed. But "laws derive very great force from custom," as the Philosopher states (Polit. ii, 5): consequently they should not be quickly changed.

Reply to Objection 2. This argument proves that laws ought to be changed: not in view of any improvement, but for the sake of a great benefit or in a case of great urgency, as stated above. This answer applies also to the Third Objection.

Consider all the laws that were changed and for what reason?
Reply
#32
(06-01-2009, 12:04 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
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.''

Very good post. I have never seen that before.
Reply
#33
(06-01-2009, 12:27 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-01-2009, 12:04 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
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.''

Very good post. I have never seen that before.

Agreed.

- Lisa
Reply
#34
(06-01-2009, 12:20 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(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

When I say "injured itself", I mean that the body has been injured by the mind and will of the Church. It is impossible for one part of the body to harm another part of the body without first having the consent of the will and the mind. If you are going to pluck out your own eye, your will must move your mind to instruct your hand to do it before the action can be carried out.

But Arianism is a good example.
Reply
#35
lamentabili sane Wrote:  Consider all the laws that were changed and for what reason?

Thanks for St. Thomas.. what does he mean by "human laws" though?

In answer to your question, I don't know why so many things were changed. It seems there were changes for the sake of change itself, or for some so-called "improvement" when no improvement was needed. I hate that.  My problem is with those who speak of "the evolution of dogma" and "doctrinal errors" coming out of Vatican II. I think change can be imprudent and an "absurd and detestable shame." That doesn't make it heresy.

I guess I just don't understand (sigh). Everybody says modernists invaded the Council and Pope Pius X condemned modernism as a heresy. So the Council was full of heretics and the teachings that came out of the Council are heretical or bordering on heresy. The Holy Spirit did not protect the Council from teaching error and now the whole conciliar church is being led astray. But since we know the Church cannot teach error, then the current magisterium is a false magisterium and the concilar church is a false church and we KNOW what that implies. THAT'S where all this leads to, as far as I can see it.

- Lisa
Reply
#36
(06-01-2009, 12:38 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-01-2009, 12:20 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(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

When I say "injured itself", I mean that the body has been injured by the mind and will of the Church. It is impossible for one part of the body to harm another part of the body without first having the consent of the will and the mind. If you are going to pluck out your own eye, your will must move your mind to instruct your hand to do it before the action can be carried out.

But Arianism is a good example.

The Arians were heretics, remember that as well. That led St. Athanasius to say in a letter to his flock:

Quote:May God console you!    What saddens you…  is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside.  It is a fact that they have the premises - but you have the apostolic Faith.  They can occupy your churches, but they are outside the true Faith.  You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you.  Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith ?  The true Faith, obviously.  Who has lost  and won in this struggle - the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith ?  True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there;  they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way… You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic tradition.  And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded.  They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.  No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers.  And we believe God will give us our churches back some day.  Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church.  They claim they represent the Church;  but in reality, they are the ones expelling themselves from it and going astray.  Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Reply
#37
(06-01-2009, 01:05 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:  Consider all the laws that were changed and for what reason?

Thanks for St. Thomas.. what does he mean by "human laws" though?

Church law or ecclesiastical law is human law as opposed to divine law. Here is Cardinal Ottaviani explaining:

Quote:"Jesus Christ, the divine founder of the Church, could indeed have left many things to the decision of men in regard to the social organisation of the Church: nevertheless, in fact He did not so leave them, but He Himself willed to establish all things which regard the fundamental constitution and organisation of the Church in so far as it is a perfect society. Consequently the principal part of the public law is divine, containing the immutable and permanent laws concerning the nature of the church, her authority and teaching office ... Examples of divine public law are: the statutes by which the Church is granted full and independent legislative, judicial, and coercive power in affairs which in any manner pertain to her end; also, the statutes which pertain to the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church, and the constitution of the sacred hierarchy; similarly, those by which the Church is granted the faculty, free and independent from any power, of acquiring, keeping and administering temporal goods in order to achieve ends proper to herself. Examples of human public law are: norms relative to the institution and rights of patriarchal sees; certain rights contained in concordats; certain norms concerning the government of the Church during the vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff."
Reply
#38
Quote:May God console you!    What saddens you…  is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside.  It is a fact that they have the premises - but you have the apostolic Faith.  They can occupy your churches, but they are outside the true Faith.  You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you.  Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith ?  The true Faith, obviously.  Who has lost  and won in this struggle - the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith ?   True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there;  they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way… You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic tradition.  And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded.  They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.  No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers.  And we believe God will give us our churches back some day.  Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church.  They claim they represent the Church;  but in reality, they are the ones expelling themselves from it and going astray.  Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.


There may have been Arian heretics everywhere and in high positions of the Church, but when a COUNCIL was called, the heresy was condemned and the Holy Spirit had the last word. We as Catholics cannot believe that there has ever been a Council called in which the heretics had the last word. 

- Lisa
Reply
#39
(06-01-2009, 01:05 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:  Consider all the laws that were changed and for what reason?

Thanks for St. Thomas.. what does he mean by "human laws" though?

In answer to your question, I don't know why so many things were changed. It seems there were changes for the sake of change itself, or for some so-called "improvement" when no improvement was needed. I hate that.  My problem is with those who speak of "the evolution of dogma" and "doctrinal errors" coming out of Vatican II. I think change can be imprudent and an "absurd and detestable shame." That doesn't make it heresy.

I guess I just don't understand (sigh). Everybody says Modernists invaded the Council and Pope Pius X condemned Modernism as a heresy. So the Council was full of heretics and the teachings that came out of the Council are heretical or bordering on heresy. The Holy Spirit did not protect the Council from teaching error and now the whole conciliar church is being led astray. But since we know the Church cannot teach error, then the current magisterium is a false magisterium and the concilar church is a false church and we KNOW what that implies. THAT'S where all this leads to, as far as I can see it.

- Lisa

There is an article that addresses pretty much what you've brought up. One significant statement is: "While the Magisterium, as such, can't teach heresy or defect in the order of faith and morals, it can err in the 'prudential order' with respect to doctrines of the third degree" (third degree = Authentic Ordinary Magisterium). It continues by saying, "Doctrines of the third degree are reformable to the extent that they relate to the contigent order or to  particulars related to a given time and place framework."

http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-...ology.html
Reply
#40
(06-01-2009, 11:21 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: There is an article that addresses pretty much what you've brought up. One significant statement is: "While the Magisterium, as such, can't teach heresy or defect in the order of faith and morals, it can err in the 'prudential order' with respect to doctrines of the third degree" (third degree = Authentic Ordinary Magisterium). It continues by saying, "Doctrines of the third degree are reformable to the extent that they relate to the contigent order or to  particulars related to a given time and place framework."
http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-...ology.html

Thank you!! This very article was linked in that "other thread" but I didn't read it. I only read Bp Sanborn's opinion of this article of which he does not approve. I'm glad I read it. It pieces together some of the puzzle for me. I've never heard of "The Prudential Order" before. It certainly did address my original concern regarding what can/should be done or left undone and "reformable elements." Very interesting. I saved it on my computer so that I could read it again and absorb it. Thanks again!

- Lisa
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)