Can doctrine develop?
#71
lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:Isn't it "each contradiction" that makes up the "totality of the crisis" though.
But you can't explain away each and every contradiction and thus ignore the fact there is a crisis. If all these things could be explained (and remember, it's not the conciliar magisterium that is explaining anything) then there's no crisis. But we know that's so far from reality.
Which is why I don't deny that there is a crisis.
l s Wrote:
Quote:This crisis is a deformation. It is not yet a strictly and solemnly defined heresy by the Extraordinary Magisterium.
The Church cannot teach ANY error in faith and morals. You can't restrict this only to HERETICAL errors. That distorts the indefectability of the Church.
The Church cannot, but men inside the Church can, even the Pope and bishops. They have done it before, just look at the examples of Arianism (Arius was a Catholic priest), Pope John XXII, Protestantism (Luther and Calvin were priests), etc. If the Church's human element could never teach error then we'd never have any heresy. The content of the infallible Extraordinary and Ordinary Universal Magisteriums cannot contain error, that is how the Church is spotless and without any blemish whatsoever, the Immaculate Bride of Her Divine Spouse, our Lord and God Jesus Christ.
Quote:So you'll follow errors until they are specifically condemned.
No. And I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth. A person who knows something is an error is obligated to reject it. I do not accept your opinion on what the errors are though, that is, on what the nature of this crisis is. I accept some of the SSPX's position and some of Pope Benedict XVI's. I accept Vatican II (as non-dogmatic) but reject the Novus Ordo deformation which was diabolically imposed in the name of Vatican II and the Catholic Church to try to destroy Her.
Quote:That flies in the face of Our Lord's own admonitions, "to beware of false prophets" and "by their fruits you will know them".
And yet what did our Lord said to His Apostles about the Pharsees who were in the priestly High Offices? Matthew 23:3
Quote:Also, many of these errors have been condemned by many a pope and council. Modern-ism was condemned as a heresy.
Yes. And I reject and hate this most wicked heresy of Modernism which has taken over most Catholic clergy and laity and even our Divine Liturgies, the Most Holy and Divine Rites of our Lord's Eternal Sacrifice of the Mass.
Reply
#72
StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:So I'm taking it that nobody knows if there was ever in our history a council that has been revoked or declared invalid?

[Image: 4025mr7.gif]
Not after It has been approved by a valid Pope. There is an historical example of an Ecumenical/General Council needing clarification, namely, the Second Ecumencial Council of Constantinople. A Pope and Saint after that Council told priests to just ignore it.
The only council that can even be mentioned is Ephesus but that was declared a robber council as a whole, therefore it was never really a true council and never approved.
Reply
#73
(06-04-2009, 05:24 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 05:14 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Although I don't want to cut this short, I just realized that, unless we want this thread locked, we're not supposed to be discussing this particular topic on this forum (I don't think). In trying to avoid discussing it, I think we actually are.

I think you are. :) I only wish to discuss the proper Catholic principles that must be applied.

:laughing:

If I hadn't adequately refuted what you had said, then yes, it would seem as if I was cutting the thread short. But I did, so that can't be the case.

I thought you might think that. But in all seriousness, the forum owners have made the rules, and according to their rules, SV may not be discussed. Consequently, they will lock all threads that migrate in that direction. I just don't want this thread to be locked, that's all.
Reply
#74
"GodFirst" Wrote:The Church cannot, but men inside the Church can, even the Pope and bishops. They have done it before, just look at the examples of Arianism (Arius was a Catholic priest), Pope John XXII, Protestantism (Luther and Calvin were priests), etc. If the Church's human element could never teach error then we'd never have any heresy. The content of the infallible Extraordinary and Ordinary Universal Magisteriums cannot contain error, that is how the Church is spotless and without any blemish whatsoever, the Immaculate Bride of Her Divine Spouse, our Lord and God Jesus Christ.

You are separating the See from it's occupants, which is the Gallican error as explained by Bp. Gasser in the Relatio of Vatican I.

"Relatio of Bp. Gasser, Vatican I" Wrote:This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: “If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered – which in fact is impossible.”

Let no one say: “Yes, the See of Peter is the center of unity, but from that there only follows the office which the Roman pastor has of confirming and of preserving his brothers in the faith. But the office is one thing, the authority, especially an infallible authority, is something else.” I reply: how would the Roman Pontiff be able to fulfill this office which was divinely and especially given to him if he did not have a special authority which all others – even the bishops whether dispersed throughout the world or gathered together – should recognize as unassailable?

Reply
#75
Can doctrine develop?  Yes, it can and it has over the last 20 centuries.  Look at the history of dogmas concerning the Trinity, Christological dogmas, etc. and you will see evidence of that.  Can doctrine change in nature? No.  In summary, there can be [organic] development of doctrine -- but never rupture.
Reply
#76
Maybe I'm missing something, but no mention of Newman in this thread??? I don't know how to link, but google newman development of doctrine.
Reply
#77
lamentabili sane Wrote:
"GodFirst" Wrote:The Church cannot, but men inside the Church can, even the Pope and bishops. They have done it before, just look at the examples of Arianism (Arius was a Catholic priest), Pope John XXII, Protestantism (Luther and Calvin were priests), etc. If the Church's human element could never teach error then we'd never have any heresy. The content of the infallible Extraordinary and Ordinary Universal Magisteriums cannot contain error, that is how the Church is spotless and without any blemish whatsoever, the Immaculate Bride of Her Divine Spouse, our Lord and God Jesus Christ.
You are separating the See from it's occupants, which is the Gallican error as explained by Bp. Gasser in the Relatio of Vatican I.
Yes, I am. But that is not the Gallican heresy at all. It never professed that. It professed that the Church only as a whole had infallibility. It denied the Sacred Dogma of Papal Infallibility. The See is the See of Rome and any Catholic male can be elected to it. The occupants are not synonymous or identical with the Apostolic See itself. The occupants are many, the See is one. Hence they cannot be identical. The same is true for all Episcopal Sees. And logically if they were identical and inseparatable then new occupants should not be able to take the See. The Papacy is not identical with the person of particular Pope, except Saint Peter, which is also why it is often called the Petrine Office or Chair of St. Peter.

"Relatio of Bp. Gasser, Vatican I" Wrote:.....Let no one say: “Yes, the See of Peter is the center of unity, but from that there only follows the office which the Roman pastor has of confirming and of preserving his brothers in the faith. But the office is one thing, the authority, especially an infallible authority, is something else.” I reply: how would the Roman Pontiff be able to fulfill this office which was divinely and especially given to him if he did not have a special authority which all others – even the bishops whether dispersed throughout the world or gathered together – should recognize as unassailable?
The Supreme Office of the Church is one with the Supreme Authority of the Church. No one is denying this fact. But the Office with it's Supreme Authority are not one in essence with all the human persons who have held said the Petrine Office. That is why it is an Office. May I remind you that the Office of the Papacy is an pure Office (of Jurisdiction) and not also an Office of Orders. The See of Rome is only the person of St. Peter and no other, not even his Successors' persons, when they speak they speak in the name and authority of St. Peter and not their own. Why do you think they speak ex cathredra of Peter, that is, "from the Chair of St. Peter". The Chair is Peters and remains St. Peter's Chair even now and not any other person's.
Reply
#78
(06-05-2009, 07:41 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:
"GodFirst" Wrote:The Church cannot, but men inside the Church can, even the Pope and bishops. They have done it before, just look at the examples of Arianism (Arius was a Catholic priest), Pope John XXII, Protestantism (Luther and Calvin were priests), etc. If the Church's human element could never teach error then we'd never have any heresy. The content of the infallible Extraordinary and Ordinary Universal Magisteriums cannot contain error, that is how the Church is spotless and without any blemish whatsoever, the Immaculate Bride of Her Divine Spouse, our Lord and God Jesus Christ.
You are separating the See from it's occupants, which is the Gallican error as explained by Bp. Gasser in the Relatio of Vatican I.
Yes, I am. But that is not the Gallican heresy at all. It never professed that. It professed that the Church only as a whole had infallibility. It denied the Sacred Dogma of Papal Infallibility. The See is the See of Rome and any Catholic male can be elected to it. The occupants are not synonymous or identical with the Apostolic See itself. The occupants are many, the See is one. Hence they cannot be identical. The same is true for all Episcopal Sees. And logically if they were identical and inseparatable then new occupants should not be able to take the See. The Papacy is not identical with the person of particular Pope, except Saint Peter, which is also why it is often called the Petrine Office or Chair of St. Peter.

"Relatio of Bp. Gasser, Vatican I" Wrote:.....Let no one say: “Yes, the See of Peter is the center of unity, but from that there only follows the office which the Roman pastor has of confirming and of preserving his brothers in the faith. But the office is one thing, the authority, especially an infallible authority, is something else.” I reply: how would the Roman Pontiff be able to fulfill this office which was divinely and especially given to him if he did not have a special authority which all others – even the bishops whether dispersed throughout the world or gathered together – should recognize as unassailable?
The Supreme Office of the Church is one with the Supreme Authority of the Church. No one is denying this fact. But the Office with it's Supreme Authority are not one in essence with all the human persons who have held said the Petrine Office. That is why it is an Office. May I remind you that the Office of the Papacy is an pure Office (of Jurisdiction) and not also an Office of Orders. The See of Rome is only the person of St. Peter and no other, not even his Successors' persons, when they speak they speak in the name and authority of St. Peter and not their own. Why do you think they speak ex cathredra of Peter, that is, "from the Chair of St. Peter". The Chair is Peters and remains St. Peter's Chair even now and not any other person's.

"Cardinal franzelin" Wrote:VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE

15.  "Hence the distinction arises between the seat [sedes, See] and the one sitting in it [sedens], by reason of perpetuity.  The seat, that is the perpetual right of the primacy, never ceases, on the part of God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and on the part of the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted on behalf of the individual successors of Peter, and of securing their succession by a fixed law; but the individual heirs or those sitting [sedentes] in the Apostolic seat are mortal men; and therefore the seat can never fail, but it can be *vacant* and often is vacant.  Then indeed the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant.

"From this can be understood the distinction in the condition of the Church herself in the time of the *vacancy of the See* and the time of the *occupation of the See* [sedis plenae], namely that in the former time, a successor of Peter, the visible rock and visible head of the Church, *is owed* to the vacant Apostolic See by divine right or law but *does not yet exist*; in the time of the occupation of the See he now *actually sits* by divine right.  It is most important to consider the very root of the whole life of the Church, by which I mean the indefectibility and infallible custody of the deposit of the faith.  Certainly there remains in the Church not only indefectibility *in believing* (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility *in proclaiming* the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church *for all days* even to the consummation of the world.  The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy.  For the divine law and promise of perpetual succession in the See of Peter, as the root and center of Catholic unity, remains; and to this law and promise correspond, on the part of the Church, not only the right and duty of, but also indefectibility in, legitimately procuring and receiving the succession and in keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See EVEN WHEN VACANT, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come ... " (Franzelin, op. cit., p. 221-223)

16.  " ...When the Pope dies, says Cano [a leading theologian of the 16th century], the Church, without doubt, remains *one*, and the *Spirit of truth* remains in her; but she is left crippled [manca] and diminished without the Vicar of Christ and the one pastor of the Catholic Church.
Therefore, although *truth even then is in the Church*; but if CONTROVERSIES OVER THE FAITH AND RELIGION SHOULD ARISE, *THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CHURCH* which is without a head on earth *WILL NOT BE AS CERTAIN*."  (Ibid. p. 223)

17. "On account of the distinction as explained [between sedes and sedens], in so far as the Apostolic See can never fail in its permanence by divine right and law, but the individual occupants [sedentes], being mortal, fail at intervals, the APOSTOLIC SEE ITSELF, as the necessary foundation and center of unity of the Church can never be called in doubt without heresy; but it can happen sometimes, in great disturbances, and it is evident from history that it has happened, that many men, while holily keeping the Faith and veneration towards the Apostolic See as true Catholics, without their own fault are not able to acknowledge the one seated in the Apostolic See, and therefore while in no way falling into heresy, slip into schism, which however is not formal but only material.  Thus in the lamentable disturbance throughout forty years, from Urban VI until Gregory XII [the Great Western Schism], Catholics were split into two and then three obediences, as they were then called, while all acknowledged and revered the divine rights of the Apostolic See; nevertheless, not acknowledging the right of the one seated in the Apostolic See, from invincible ignorance of the lawful succession [i.e. as to which claimant was the lawful successor] and thus adhering either to no one, or to a pseudo-pontiff.  Among these, even saints such as St. Vincent Ferrer for a time, and his brother Boniface, a Carthusian Prior, were implicated in material schism." (Ibid. p. 223-4)


ON PAPAL HERESY

18. "Therefore no power exists in the Church, which can lessen or take away the supreme power, with all its rights, divinely conferred on the Pontiff, once established [in office].  The power instituted by Christ and conferred on the successor of Peter, cannot cease in him except by voluntary renuntiation [resignation] ... or voluntary DEFECTION FROM THE CHURCH BY MANIFEST AND CONTUMACIOUS HERESY.  That this scandal could come about is doubted, NOT WITHOUT REASON, BY THEOLOGIANS [note it is a doubt, not a certainty], in view of the sweet providence of Christ towards His Church and the divine promises themselves; since it is a question of him who, formally as pastor and doctor of the Church, by Christ's promise and institution, by divine assistence, cannot err in definitions; and since in fact this has never happened. (Cf. Bellarm. de Rom.  Pont. l. IV, cc. 6,7)." (Ibid., p. 226)
Reply
#79
Has this thread developed organically? Is there continuity? Or is it a complete rupture from the original topic?  ;D (j/k)

Benno, here is the link to John Henry Cardinal Newman’s “Development of Christian Doctrine.” I haven’t skimmed through this yet.. It might take a while. But thank you for bringing it up!

Newman Reader - Development of Christian Doctrine
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html



Reply
#80
"Scheeben" Wrote:SECT. 35.—Development of Dogma.

I. The truths which God has been pleased to reveal to mankind were not all communicated in the beginning. As time went on, the later Patriarchs had a larger stock of revealed truth than those who preceded them; the Prophets had a still larger share than the Patriarchs. But when the Church was founded, the stock of Revelation was completed, and no further truths were to be revealed (§ 6). The infallibility of the Church manifestly precludes any change in dogmas previously defined. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Church has not always possessed the same explicit knowledge of all points of doctrine and enforced them just in the same way as in the time of the Apostles. In what terms should this difference be stated?

II. 1. It is not enough to say that the difference between the earlier and the later documents is merely nominal; viz. that the terminology of the earlier Creeds is obscure and vague, while in the later ones it becomes clear and precise.

2. Nor, again, will it do to make use of the comparison of a scroll gradually unrolled or of a casket whose contents become gradually known. There is, indeed, some truth in these comparisons, but they cannot account for all the facts.

3. A better comparison is that the later defined doctrines are contained in the earlier ones as the conclusion of a syllogism s contained in the premisses. This is to admit that there has been a real, though only logical, development in the Church's doctrine. Such is the argument of St. Augustine in the dispute concerning the re-baptism of heretics. According to him, a dogma may pass through three stages: (1) implicit belief; (2) controversy; (3) explicit definition. Thus in the early ages the validity of heretical Baptism was admitted in practice by the fact of not repeating the Sacrament. But when the question was formally proposed, there seemed to be strong arguments both for and against the validity. At this stage the most orthodox teachers might, and indeed did, disagree. Finally, the matter was decided, and thenceforth no further discussion was lawful within the Church. (De Bapt., II. 12-14; Migne, ix. 133. See also Franzelin, De Trad., thes. xxiii.)

4. But can we not go further and admit an organic development? In the case of logical development all the conclusions are already contained in the premisses, and are merely drawn out of them, whereas in organic development the results are only potentially in the germs from which they spring (Mark V. 28-32). In organic development there is no alteration or corruption, no mere addition or accretion; there is vitality, absorption, assimilation, growth, identity. Take, for example, the doctrines mentioned above. Scripture teaches plainly that there is only one God; yet it speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and it speaks of Jesus Christ in such terms that He must be both God and Man. It was not until after some centuries that these truths were elaborated into the definitions which we are bound to believe. Who can doubt that during these centuries the primitive teaching absorbed into itself the appropriate Greek elements, and that the process was analogous to the growth of an organism? (Supra, p. xx.) This view of the organic development of the Church's teaching is a conclusive answer to those who ask us to produce from ancient authorities the exact counterpart of what we now believe and practise. They might just as well look for the branches and leaves of an oak in the acorn from which it sprang.

“Shall we then have no advancement of religion in the Church of Christ? Let us have it indeed, and the greatest. … But yet in such sort that it be truly an advancement of faith, not a change (sed ita tamen ut vere profectus sit ille fidei, non permutato), seeing that it is the nature of an advancement, that in itself each thing (severally) grow greater, but of a change that something be turned from one thing into another. … Let the soul's religion imitate the law of the body, which, as years go on, develops indeed and opens out its due proportions, and yet remains identically what it was. … Small are a baby's limbs, a youth's are larger, yet they are the same. … So also the doctrine of the Christian religion must follow those laws of advancement; namely, that with years it be consolidated, with time it be expanded, with age it be exalted, yet remain uncorrupt and untouched, and be full and perfect in all the proportions of each of its parts, and with all its members, as it were, and proper senses; that it admit no change besides, sustain no loss of its propriety, no variety of its definition. Wherefore, whatsoever in this Church, God's husbandry, has by the faith of our fathers been sown, that same must be cultivated by the industry of their children, that same flourish and ripen, that same advance and be perfected” (Commonitorium, nn. 28, 29).

III. Revelation does not follow the merely natural laws of development like any other body of thought. While it is indeed necessarily influenced by the natural environment in which it exists, this influence works under Divine Providence and the infallible guidance of the Church. Moreover, it can never come to pass that an early dogmatic definition should afterwards be revoked, or be understood in a sense at variance with the meaning originally attached to it by the Church. “The doctrine which God has revealed has not been proposed as some philosophical discovery to be perfected by the wit of man, but has been entrusted to Christ's Spouse as a Divine deposit to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared. Hence sacred dogmas must ever be understood in the sense once for all (semel) declared by Holy Mother Church; and never must that sense be abandoned under pretext of profounder knowledge (altioris intelligentiae).” (Vat. Council, Sess. iii. chap. 4.) On the whole subject, see Newman's great work, Development of Christian Doctrine.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)