Fides manducans intellectum!
#51
What Pius claimed and what the historical facts really are is a different thing altogether. The early Church, not to mention Scripture, is completely silent regarding the Blessed Virgin's departure from this life. The first writer who mentions it is Epiphanius in the 4th century and even he admitted that no-one knew her end. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin fist appeared in the west in end of the 6th century with Gregory of Tours and he based his opinion on the apocryphal work called Transitus Beatae Virginis Mariae which has no historical value whatsoever, besides being deemed heretical by pope Gelasius.
Reply
#52
I'm confused here. If something is so obscure that even St. Thomas couldn't see it, how could it be doctrine? I see only two solutions to this problem.

1. Doctrine develops. Newman is right, though some would prefer different language (that the doctrine that was implicit becomes explicit through the exercise if the Magisterium). I don't see how the different ways of speaking are different realities.

2. The Protestants are right (at least in the claim that the Roman Church requires its members to believe things that are added on to Revelation by man).
Reply
#53
(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.
?

The connection is this. If it wasn't doctrine then, it's not doctrine now (unless doctrine develops). I have to believe something St. Thomas didn't get, but I'm supposed to make sense of that while rejecting development of doctrine?

Or perhaps you (Geremia's, Walty) agree doctrine develops, but not the way Newman says. So how does it develop? It can't just be a deeper understanding (eg of the Immaculate Conception) since there was a shift. You didn't have to believe it, then you had to.

It's not as if the Church always taught the IC but earlier we didn't understand how it could be and later we understood how.

Reply
#54
(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.

No. No. No.  That's not what I mean at all.

Revelation is what it is.  It was passed down through the Scriptures and Tradition kept by the Apostles.  Nothing is added to it, but doctrines are emphasized at various times which already exist within that initial Deposit.

I'm honestly surprised that this is a big point of contention.  The Deposit of the Faith is NOT something which grows with the centuries. 
Reply
#55
(10-25-2012, 10:27 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I'm confused here. If something is so obscure that even St. Thomas couldn't see it, how could it be doctrine? I see only two solutions to this problem.

1. Doctrine develops. Newman is right, though some would prefer different language (that the doctrine that was implicit becomes explicit through the exercise if the Magisterium). I don't see how the different ways of speaking are different realities.

2. The Protestants are right (at least in the claim that the Roman Church requires its members to believe things that are added on to Revelation by man).

It's already packed somewhere in Revelation but if it hasn't been proclaimed de fide yet, one could argue against this point of Revelation without falling into heresy (due to ignorance).  However, when the Church proclaims it, She isn't receiving some new proclamation from heaven.  She's just either a) finally getting around to emphasizing it because it's important in the given time or b) She's finally fully understood what, say, Scriptures of the Apostles said with enough clarity to give a clear treatment of the matter.
Reply
#56
(10-25-2012, 10:27 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I'm confused here. If something is so obscure that even St. Thomas couldn't see it, how could it be doctrine?
Ludwig Otts Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Wrote:To facilitate general understanding, and to avoid misunderstandings and distortions, the ancient truths which were always believed, e.g., the Hypostatic Union (unio hypostatica), Transubstantiation, etc., are formulated in new, sharply defined concepts.
(10-25-2012, 10:27 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I see only two solutions to this problem.

1. Doctrine develops. Newman is right, though some would prefer different language (that the doctrine that was implicit becomes explicit through the exercise if the Magisterium). I don't see how the different ways of speaking are different realities.
To make something explicit is not to add to it but to draw it out. It seems Newman's conception is that Divine Truths becomes explicit Catholic Truths by addition of truths we supply. (See below for the Divine Truth / Catholic Truth distinction.)
(10-25-2012, 10:27 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: 2. The Protestants are right (at least in the claim that the Roman Church requires its members to believe things that are added on to Revelation by man).
Ott makes an important distinction:
Quote:Those doctrines and truths defined by the Church not as immediately revealed but as intrinsically connected with the truths of Revelation so that their denial would undermine the revealed truths are called Catholic Truths (veritates catholicae) or Ecclesiastical Teachings (doctrinae ecclesiasticae) to distinguish them from the Divine Truths or Divine Doctrines of Revelation (veritates vel doctrinae divinae).

Also, he distinguishes material and formal dogmas:
Ott Wrote:From the material side of dogma, that is, in the communication of the Truths of Revelation to humanity, a substantial growth took place in human history until Revelation reached its apogee and conclusion in Christ (cf. Hebr. 1:1).

St. Gregory the Great says: “With the progress of the times the knowledge of the spiritual Fathers increased; for, in the Science of God, Moses was more instructed than Abraham, the Prophets more than Moses, the Apostles more than the Prophets” (in Ezechielem lib. 2, hom. 4, 12).

With Christ and the Apostles General Revelation concluded. (sent. certa.)

Pope Pius X rejected the liberal Protestant and Modernistic doctrine of the evolution of religion through “New Revelations.” Thus he condemned the proposition that: “The Revelation, which is the object of Catholic Faith, was not terminated with the Apostles.” D 2021.

The clear teaching of Holy Writ and Tradition is that after Christ, and the Apostles who proclaimed the message of Christ, no further Revelation will be made. Christ was the fulfilment of the Law of the Old Testament (Mt. 5:17; 5:21 et seq), and the absolute teacher of humanity (Mt. 23:10: “One is your master, Christ”; cf. Mt. 28:20). The Apostles saw in Christ: “the coming of the fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4) and regarded as their task the preservation, integral and unfalsified, of the heritage of Faith entrusted to them by Christ (1 Tim. 6:14; 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14; 2:2; 3:14). The Fathers indignantly repudiated the claim of the heretics to possess secret doctrines or new Revelations of the Holy Ghost. St. Irenaeus (Adv. haer III 1; IV 35, 8), and Tertullian (De praesc. 21) stress, against the Gnostics, that the full truth of Revelation is contained in the doctrine of the Apostles which is preserved unfalsified through the uninterrupted succession of the bishops.
Ott Wrote:As to the Formal side of dogma, that is, in the knowledge and in the ecclesiastical proposal of Revealed Truth, and consequently also in the public faith of the Church, there is a progress (accidental development of dogmas) which occurs in the following fashion:

1) Truths which formerly were only implicitly believed are expressly proposed for belief. (Cf. S. th. I; II, 1, 7: quantum ad explicationem crevit numerus articulorum (fidei), quia quaedam explicite cognita sunt a posterioribus, quae a prioribus non cognoscebantur explicite. There was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly, which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them.)

2) Material Dogmas are raised to the status of Formal Dogmas.

3) To facilitate general understanding, and to avoid misunderstandings and distortions, the ancient truths which were always believed, e.g., the Hypostatic Union (unio hypostatica), Transubstantiation, etc., are formulated in new, sharply defined concepts.

4) Questions formerly disputed are explained and decided, and heretical propositions are condemned. Cf. St. Augustine, De civ. Dei 2, 1; ab adversario mota quaestio discendi existit occasio (a question moved by an adversary gives an occasion for learning).

The exposition of the dogmas in the given sense is prepared by theological science and promulgated by the Teaching Authority of the Church under the direction of the Holy Ghost (John 14:26). These new expositions of dogmatic truth are motivated, on the one hand, by the natural striving of man for deeper understanding of Revealed Truth, and on the other hand by external influences, such as the attacks arising from heresy and unbelief, theological controversies, advances in philosophical knowledge and historical research, development of the liturgy, and the general assertion of Faith expressed therein.

Even the Fathers stress the necessity of deeper research into the truths of Revelation, of clearing up obscurities, and of developing the teachings of Revelation. Cf. the classical testimony of St. Vincent Lerin († before 450). “But perhaps someone says: Will there then be no progress in the religion of Christ? Certainly there should be, even a great and rich progress … only, it must in truth be a progress in Faith and not an alteration of Faith. For progress it is necessary that something should increase of itself, for alteration, however, that something should change from one thing to the other.” (Commonitorium 23.) Cf. D 1800.

5) There may be also a progress in the confession of faith of the individual believer through the extension and deepening of his theological knowledge. The basis for the possibility of this progress lies in the depth of the truths of Faith on the one hand, and on the other in the varying capacity for perfection of the human reason.

Conditions making for a true progress in the knowledge of Faith by individual persons are, according to the declaration of the Vatican Council, zeal, reverence and moderation: cum sedule, pie et sobrie quaerit. D 1796.
Reply
#57
(10-26-2012, 12:34 AM)Walty Wrote: It's already packed somewhere in Revelation but if it hasn't been proclaimed de fide yet, one could argue against this point of Revelation without falling into heresy (due to ignorance). 

So one could argue against Christ's co-equality with the Father before Nicea?
Reply
#58
(10-25-2012, 09:34 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: What Pius claimed and what the historical facts really are is a different thing altogether. The early Church, not to mention Scripture, is completely silent regarding the Blessed Virgin's departure from this life.
Although Scripture doesn't explicitly support it, it is still a part of Revelation (it is still a Divine Truth). To deny she was bodily assumed "would undermine the revealed truths", as Ott says.
Reply
#59
(10-26-2012, 12:43 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 12:34 AM)Walty Wrote: It's already packed somewhere in Revelation but if it hasn't been proclaimed de fide yet, one could argue against this point of Revelation without falling into heresy (due to ignorance). 

So one could argue against Christ's co-equality with the Father before Nicea?

One would have been wrong, but one wouldn't have been dissenting and rebelling against Christ's authority on earth in the same way they would be after the Church proclaimed this doctrine de fide.
Reply
#60
(10-26-2012, 12:44 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 09:34 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: What Pius claimed and what the historical facts really are is a different thing altogether. The early Church, not to mention Scripture, is completely silent regarding the Blessed Virgin's departure from this life.

Although Scripture doesn't explicitly support it, it is still a part of Revelation (it is still a Divine Truth). To deny she was bodily assumed "would undermine the revealed truths", as Ott says.

Simply affirming it's part of revelation doesn't cut it. Scripture neither "explicitly" or "implicitly" supports the Assumption: in fact, it's completely silent about it. Epiphanius in the 4th century confessed that no-one knew the Blessed Virgin's end. The first formulation of this belief came about with the backing of apocryphal literature that has no historical value whatsoever. It's untenable to persist in affirming that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a dogma of faith revealed to the Apostles and handed down by them to the Church. The only way to believe so is to believe that the Church herself is the rule of faith so whatever she happens to declare as revelation is, by that very fact, revelation. And that is, sadly, the case with the Assumption.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)