Can doctrine develop?
#41
(06-02-2009, 12:58 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(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

What you are referring to is a practical judgement. Although the Church does not claim infallibility in the practical judgment; She does claim infallibility in her doctrinal decrees. She cannot err in faith and morals, period. Seek to understand what the Church Herself teaches about infallibility, then you'll see what is wrong with these articles written by unauthorised laymen.  Here is a well known manual of Catholic theology (that I've already quoted) explaining:

"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.

Reply
#42
(06-01-2009, 01:34 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(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.

Wasn't Modernism condemned as a heresy by Pope Pius X in his encyclical: PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS? An overwhelming number of clergy taught the Arian heresy to the extent that a parallel creed was published by Eusebius of Caesarea. While not part of the Ordinary Magisterium, Modernism is nevertheless a part of the Universal Magisterium as the overwhelming majority of bishops, in union with the Pope, have taught it.

However, I will say that while it is suspected that the Pope did concede to Arianism, there is no evidence that he ever taught the heresy. And an Ordinary Universal Magisterial teaching requires the Pope also must teach the same belief. So Arianism is a not a good example as I had said because it was never technically a part of the Universal Magisterium. Thank you for making me think twice about this.

Lisa, I apologize for using this example. I will find another one...

INP

Reply
#43
(06-01-2009, 12:30 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(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

Quote:Dz.1818 3. If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema [cf. n.1800].
Reply
#44
(05-31-2009, 06:32 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: This thread is inspired by Bp Sanborn's response to "rupture theology" and a term he used: "evolution of dogma." I didn't want to respond there because I don't fully comprehend the arguments and perhaps my question will be a derailment. So I'm starting a new thread to ask in simple layman terms:

Can doctrine develop or not? Or can the magisterium’s understanding of doctrine develop? It would seem impossible to believe that it couldn’t – and hasn’t.

It was always my understanding that the Church was like the mustard seed. The deposit of Faith was sealed with the death of the last apostle. The Holy Spirit planted the seed, waters the seed and over time it grows and matures; ie the Real Presence, Marian dogmas, Papal Infallibility, etc.

But can the Church’s teaching develop with regards to the death penalty, religious liberty, EENS and what constitutes the “Catholic Church” itself? Why do traditionalists accept developments that happened before Vatican II but not during or after? Please tell me what is allowed to "develop" and what isn't.

- Lisa

I recommend an article found in the CE (online):  Tradition and living Magisterium

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

You can scroll down and read the section on the development of dogma.

Reply
#45
(06-03-2009, 09:46 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Dz.1818 3. If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema [cf. n.1800].


Note it says "understands" - present tense. I agree that it is the Church who interprets herself - not "unauthorized laymen" like us. In that link to the article in question, the "unauthorized layman" is quoting church documents, popes present and previous, also the First and Second Vatican Councils. You are quoting church documents too but with a different view. If it was all so simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There wouldn't be opposing views among traditionalists themselves. But there goes another obviously stupid statement from me. It isn't that I mind people having an opinion, but why must we pretend it's all a piece of cake?

That's the impression I'm getting from you and if I'm wrong -- let me be anathema.

- Lisa
Reply
#46
(06-03-2009, 10:26 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(06-03-2009, 09:46 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Dz.1818 3. If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema [cf. n.1800].


Note it says "understands" - present tense. I agree that it is the Church who interprets herself - not "unauthorized laymen" like us. In that link to the article in question, the "unauthorized layman" is quoting church documents, popes present and previous, also the First and Second Vatican Councils. You are quoting church documents too but with a different view. If it was all so simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There wouldn't be opposing views among traditionalists themselves. But there goes another obviously stupid statement from me. It isn't that I mind people having an opinion, but why must we pretend it's all a piece of cake?

That's the impression I'm getting from you and if I'm wrong -- let me be anathema.

- Lisa

Far from it. It is not simple. And you're right, we can't decide it. But we can try to properly understand it.
Reply
#47
(06-03-2009, 10:30 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Far from it. It is not simple. And you're right, we can't decide it. But we can try to properly understand it.

On that we agree.. and I do thank you for your participation and help!

- Lisa
Reply
#48
(06-03-2009, 10:35 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(06-03-2009, 10:30 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Far from it. It is not simple. And you're right, we can't decide it. But we can try to properly understand it.

On that we agree.. and I do thank you for your participation and help!

- Lisa

And here I thought you were angry with me. :)
Reply
#49
(06-03-2009, 10:30 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: And here I thought you were angry with me. :)

Nah.  :)
Reply
#50
(06-03-2009, 10:26 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(06-03-2009, 09:46 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Dz.1818 3. If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema [cf. n.1800].


Note it says "understands" - present tense. I agree that it is the Church who interprets herself - not "unauthorized laymen" like us. In that link to the article in question, the "unauthorized layman" is quoting church documents, popes present and previous, also the First and Second Vatican Councils. You are quoting church documents too but with a different view. If it was all so simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There wouldn't be opposing views among traditionalists themselves. But there goes another obviously stupid statement from me. It isn't that I mind people having an opinion, but why must we pretend it's all a piece of cake?

That's the impression I'm getting from you and if I'm wrong -- let me be anathema.

- Lisa

Well, I'm not sure, but I think it's important to consider the and in the sense that and is always understood. And is conjunctive language so this statement says that what we understood yesterday is the same as that which we understand today. In fact, the Holy Fathers might have said, "...different from that which the Church has understood, understands, and always will understand. But they didn't probably because the present tense is perpetuated as long as time exists. We must remember that this was the design of the Magisterium. It is only recently in the past two scores that this design has been abandoned: what we understood yesterday of the Magisterium is not that which we understand today.

INP
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)