Fides manducans intellectum!
#41
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I will go back to read this thread more carefully. But if doctrine doesn't develop, then how do I avoid the following reasoning:

1. Doctrine doesn't develop.
2. It ended at the death of St. John the Apostle.
Revelation, yes
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: 3. Many christians after St. John (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) didn't accept the Immaculate Conception.
St. Thomas submitted all his writings to the judgment of the Church.
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: 4. Though Scotus, for example, did defend the Immaculate Conception, it obviously wasn't defined doctrine.
Not until Bl. Pope Pius IX
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: 5. So we shouldn't consider the Immaculate Conception to be doctrine now either.
?
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: additionally

6. The Roman Church does teach the Immaculate Conception (de fide).
7. Therefore the Roman Church is fallible.
?
Reply
#42
(10-25-2012, 06:33 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 06:27 PM)Walty Wrote: Just because some don't recognize it doesn't mean that it isn't in revelation.  Some parts of revelation are doubted by some theologians.  Other parts need to be teased out a little bit.  But everything which is believed now is and was believed by the early Church, just not by the entire early Church.  It was always a part of God's revelation.

The Church, in seeing that there is some disagreement, invokes Her authority to say, yes, the Immaculate Conception IS a part of revelation and those of who you said otherwise are wrong.

The Church never declares new teachings.  It just clarifies what is already there (though sometimes it may be obscure to us).

So these teachings were implicit not explicit? Or explicitly taught by some, and implicit contained in the teaching of others?

My point is, whether implicit or explicit, they were all there.  Just because some Church Fathers go it wrong doesn't mean that when the Church proclaimed them wrong that She was changing Her stance.  For instance, the Immaculate Conception has always been tucked away in revelation and, from what I understand, many in the early Church believed in it while some others, especially in the coming centuries, did not.  But those theologians don't speak on behalf of the Church and they are not infallible.

So the Church finally made explicit and de fide a teaching which had already existed but hadn't been emphasized yet.
Reply
#43
(10-25-2012, 06:35 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I will go back to read this thread more carefully. But if doctrine doesn't develop, then how do I avoid the following reasoning:

1. Doctrine doesn't develop.
2. It ended at the death of St. John the Apostle.
Revelation, yes
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: 3. Many christians after St. John (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) didn't accept the Immaculate Conception.
St. Thomas submitted all his writings to the judgment of the Church.
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: 4. Though Scotus, for example, did defend the Immaculate Conception, it obviously wasn't defined doctrine.
Not until Bl. Pope Pius IX
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: 5. So we shouldn't consider the Immaculate Conception to be doctrine now either.
?
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: additionally

6. The Roman Church does teach the Immaculate Conception (de fide).
7. Therefore the Roman Church is fallible.
?

This is what I was thinking, Geremia.  There seems to be a disconnect between the premises and the conclusions here.  The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
Reply
#44
(10-25-2012, 06:40 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 06:35 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I will go back to read this thread more carefully. But if doctrine doesn't develop, then how do I avoid the following reasoning:

1. Doctrine doesn't develop.
2. It ended at the death of St. John the Apostle.
Revelation, yes
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: 3. Many christians after St. John (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) didn't accept the Immaculate Conception.
St. Thomas submitted all his writings to the judgment of the Church.
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: 4. Though Scotus, for example, did defend the Immaculate Conception, it obviously wasn't defined doctrine.
Not until Bl. Pope Pius IX
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: 5. So we shouldn't consider the Immaculate Conception to be doctrine now either.
?
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: additionally

6. The Roman Church does teach the Immaculate Conception (de fide).
7. Therefore the Roman Church is fallible.
?

This is what I was thinking, Geremia.  There seems to be a disconnect between the premises and the conclusions here.  The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
It seems Walty thinks that truths of Revelation do not exist until they are defined as dogma.
Reply
#45
That St. Thomas, for instance, knew nothing of the Immaculate Conception should give you pause to think and consider other possibilities outside the box.
Reply
#46
(10-25-2012, 08:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: That St. Thomas, for instance, knew nothing of the Immaculate Conception should give you pause to think and consider other possibilities outside the box.
Just because he didn't seem to know exactly how She could be immaculately conceived doesn't mean he "knew nothing of the Immaculate Conception" or that others in his era and before didn't believe it as a truth of Revelation.
Reply
#47
(10-25-2012, 07:21 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 06:40 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 06:35 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I will go back to read this thread more carefully. But if doctrine doesn't develop, then how do I avoid the following reasoning:

1. Doctrine doesn't develop.
2. It ended at the death of St. John the Apostle.
Revelation, yes
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: 3. Many christians after St. John (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) didn't accept the Immaculate Conception.
St. Thomas submitted all his writings to the judgment of the Church.
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: 4. Though Scotus, for example, did defend the Immaculate Conception, it obviously wasn't defined doctrine.
Not until Bl. Pope Pius IX
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: 5. So we shouldn't consider the Immaculate Conception to be doctrine now either.
?
(10-25-2012, 04:52 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: additionally

6. The Roman Church does teach the Immaculate Conception (de fide).
7. Therefore the Roman Church is fallible.
?

This is what I was thinking, Geremia.  There seems to be a disconnect between the premises and the conclusions here.  The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
It seems Walty thinks that truths of Revelation do not exist until they are defined as dogma.

(Did you mean Walty or newyorkcatholic?)

There are no new dogmas (Revelation has ended), but dogmas may be only implicit until they are explicitly defined.  The Church exercises infallibility when she explicitly defines them, but they were revealed and true all along (infallibility doesn't create new truth).
Reply
#48
(10-25-2012, 08:06 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 08:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: That St. Thomas, for instance, knew nothing of the Immaculate Conception should give you pause to think and consider other possibilities outside the box.
Just because he didn't seem to know exactly how She could be immaculately conceived doesn't mean he "knew nothing of the Immaculate Conception" or that others in his era and before didn't believe it as a truth of Revelation.

Well, it's an incontrovertible fact that they didn't. Some theologians did speculate on that but truths of revelation are not theological speculations but revealed facts that require our assent.

St. Thomas didn't have to speculate on how Christ could be divine or how He could've died for the sins of man. Those were clearly truths handed down from the Apostles and perpetuated in the holy scriptures for our salvation. The Immaculate Conception - not to mention the Assumption, which is even more bizarre - cannot bear such scrutiny.
Reply
#49
(10-25-2012, 08:15 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Well, it's an incontrovertible fact that they didn't. Some theologians did speculate on that but truths of revelation are not theological speculations but revealed facts that require our assent.

St. Thomas didn't have to speculate on how Christ could be divine or how He could've died for the sins of man. Those were clearly truths handed down from the Apostles and perpetuated in the holy scriptures for our salvation. The Immaculate Conception - not to mention the Assumption, which is even more bizarre - cannot bear such scrutiny.

Yes. There could be an argument that it was not known by all the Apostles, and therefore was not universally known and taught. St Ephraim is the clearest early reference. He didn't just pull it out of his hat, though.
Reply
#50
(10-25-2012, 08:15 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 08:06 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 08:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: That St. Thomas, for instance, knew nothing of the Immaculate Conception should give you pause to think and consider other possibilities outside the box.
Just because he didn't seem to know exactly how She could be immaculately conceived doesn't mean he "knew nothing of the Immaculate Conception" or that others in his era and before didn't believe it as a truth of Revelation.

Well, it's an incontrovertible fact that they didn't.
Really?
(10-25-2012, 08:15 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Some theologians did speculate on that but truths of revelation are not theological speculations but revealed facts that require our assent.
They can be.
(10-25-2012, 08:15 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: St. Thomas didn't have to speculate on how Christ could be divine or how He could've died for the sins of man. Those were clearly truths handed down from the Apostles and perpetuated in the holy scriptures for our salvation. The Immaculate Conception - not to mention the Assumption, which is even more bizarre - cannot bear such scrutiny.
The Assumption is not "bizarre."

The Church certainly believed in the body assumption and immaculate conception of Our Lady before they were defined as dogmas. Bl. Pope Pius IX writes (INEFFABILIS DEUS):
Quote:All are aware with how much diligence this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God has been handed down, proposed and defended by the most outstanding religious orders, by the more celebrated theological academies, and by very eminent doctors in the sciences of theology. All know, likewise, how eager the bishops have been to profess openly and publicly, even in ecclesiastical assemblies, that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime.
He gives examples of the Council of Trent explicitly excluding Mary from the declaration that says every man is conceived with original sin.

Similarly for the Assumption, Pope Pius XII gives examples of how the dogma he defines is not his own invention but contained in Revelation and handed down in Tradition, e.g. (MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS):
Quote:St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)