Fides manducans intellectum!
#81
I appreciate the replies form Geremia and Walty (and others).

But I'm not having a crisis of faith, I accept what Ott wrote, and I accept all Catholic teaching.

My problem is that it seems like a blatant contradiction to accept this and deny that doctrine develops. Not changes in any sense of contradiction, not that doctrines are made new, or pulled out of thin air. But develop.

So my real question is:

-the Protestant view seems consistent (at least consistent in rejecting anything after the Apostles, and rejecting the IC and Assumption -- there are other problems with Protestantism)

-the St. Vincent of Lerins / Newman view of doctrinal development seems consistent

-the stricter Bishop Tissier way does not make sense, that Newman is wrong. The idea that the only development is in our understanding of what is already revealed is hard to square with the history of the IC. In other threads we see the traditional emphasis on St. Thomas as a teacher par excellence. And he never said, "well the IC happened, but I don't see how yet," and then later understanding deepened. He actually denied it (inconsistently)!

so what's the problem with Newman?
Reply
#82
(10-26-2012, 03:38 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 02:49 AM)Geremia Wrote: They must be adhered to if you believe in the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," which is certainly the part of the Creed that covers belief in future defined dogmas (esp. the Apostolic mark, which covers the authority of a pope to make dogmatic definitions).

Belief in future dogmas is not part of the creed. Your interpolation of such a meaning into the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" clause is unwarranted.
Well, then you deny the papacy has any real authority and you prefer your own personal authority instead. This is what it always boils down to with Protestants: Why should I believe you have more authority than a descendent of St. Peter?

Also, many Protestants seem to think the number of articles of faith only increases up until a certain time. St. Thomas writes:
Quote:[A]s regards the substance of the articles of faith, they have not received any increase as time went on: since whatever those who lived later have believed, was contained, albeit implicitly, in the faith of those Fathers who preceded them. But 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. Hence the Lord said to Moses (Exodus 6:2-3): "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob [Vulgate: 'I am the Lord that appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob'] . . . and My name Adonai I did not show them": David also said (Psalm 118:100): "I have had understanding above ancients": and the Apostle says (Ephesians 3:5) that the mystery of Christ, "in other generations was not known, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets."
Why would you want to settle for what is less explicit?
(10-26-2012, 03:38 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
Quote:Bl. Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not because he could but because many failed to recognize the singular status of the most perfect human creature God has ever created, Our Lady. They failed to recognize this because they thought all men are immaculately conceived, viz., they denied Original Sin.

Actually, there are many who deny her immaculate conception and adhere to the belief in original sin (Orthodox and Protestants, for instance).
But then they deny the papacy and its authority to define dogma.

(10-26-2012, 03:38 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Church Fathers, like Augustine, who didn't think of the Blessed Virgin as sinless certainly adhered to original sin and the fall of all men in Adam. There's no logical correlation between denying the Blessed Virgin's Immaculate Conception and the denial of original sin.
I'm not saying a logical consequence of Original Sin is that Our Lady was immaculately conceived. I'm saying denying the Immaculate Conception makes one apt to deny Original Sin, and Bl. Pope Pius IX certainly gives many other reasons in his INEFFABILIS DEUS. Read it, if you haven't already. Basically, he proclaimed the dogma to help our faith and dispel error.

This is essentially what St. Thomas says, too ("Who has the right to propose a symbol of faith?"):
Quote:Objection 1. It would seem that it does not belong to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith. For a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to explain the articles of faith, as stated above (Article 9). Now, in the Old Testament, the articles of faith were more and more explained as time went on, by reason of the truth of faith becoming clearer through greater nearness to Christ, as stated above (Article 7). Since then this reason ceased with the advent of the New Law, there is no need for the articles of faith to be more and more explicit. Therefore it does not seem to belong to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a new edition of the symbol.

[…]

Reply to Objection 1. The truth of faith is sufficiently explicit in the teaching of Christ and the apostles. But since, according to 2 Peter 3:16, some men are so evil-minded as to pervert the apostolic teaching and other doctrines and Scriptures to their own destruction, it was necessary as time went on to express the faith more explicitly against the errors which arose.
(10-26-2012, 03:38 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
Quote:Those in Church Triumphant don't have faith, because they see God face-to-face. Does that make them not Christian?

This is a just a clever cop-out and you know it. I expected more of you, Geremia.
Being a Christian means being incorporated into the Church through baptism. When you mortally sin, you are not necessarily excommunicating yourself.
(10-26-2012, 03:38 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Even in Roman Catholic theology sinning against the faith severs you from the Church while other mortal sins don't. You should know that. It's impossible to belong to the Church - here understood as the earthly community of believers in Christ - without faith.
If you mortally sin against the faith and outwardly profess the heresy, then you excommunicate yourself and are no longer Christian.

A Summa question makes a distinction between "mental" and "corporeal" incorporation:
Quote:Objection 1. It seems that certain acts of the virtues are unfittingly set down as effects of Baptism, to wit--"incorporation in Christ, enlightenment, and fruitfulness." For Baptism is not given to an adult, except he believe; according to Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." But it is by faith that man is incorporated in Christ, according to Ephesians 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts." Therefore no one is baptized except he be already incorporated in Christ. Therefore incorporation with Christ is not the effect of Baptism.

[…]

Reply to Objection 1. Adults who already believe in Christ are incorporated in Him mentally. But afterwards, when they are baptized, they are incorporated in Him, corporally, as it were, i.e. by the visible sacrament; without the desire of which they could not have been incorporated in Him even mentally.
(This is also why there can be salvation for catechumens.)
Reply
#83
(10-26-2012, 03:46 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Furthermore, it is a hard sell that all that pertains to Christ, His Life, and mission, are contained just in the Scriptures.
St. John admitted so himself in the last verse of his gospel:
Jn. 21:25 Wrote:there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
Reply
#84
(10-26-2012, 04:10 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I appreciate the replies form Geremia and Walty (and others).

But I'm not having a crisis of faith, I accept what Ott wrote, and I accept all Catholic teaching.

My problem is that it seems like a blatant contradiction to accept this and deny that doctrine develops. Not changes in any sense of contradiction, not that doctrines are made new, or pulled out of thin air. But develop.

So my real question is:

-the Protestant view seems consistent (at least consistent in rejecting anything after the Apostles, and rejecting the IC and Assumption -- there are other problems with Protestantism)

-the St. Vincent of Lerins / Newman view of doctrinal development seems consistent

-the stricter Bishop Tissier way does not make sense, that Newman is wrong.
Bp. Tissier seems to agree with most of what Newman wrote, as far as I can tell. But anyways…
(10-26-2012, 04:10 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: The idea that the only development is in our understanding of what is already revealed is hard to square with the history of the IC. In other threads we see the traditional emphasis on St. Thomas as a teacher par excellence. And he never said, "well the IC happened, but I don't see how yet," and then later understanding deepened. He actually denied it (inconsistently)!

so what's the problem with Newman?
Perhaps I didn't make this clear initially, but Newman appears to think development occurs by the addition of human innovations.

In "The manner of embodying the articles in a symbol," St. Thomas writes:
Quote:Objection 1. It would seem that it is unsuitable for the articles of faith to be embodied in a symbol. Because Holy Writ is the rule of faith, to which no addition or subtraction can lawfully be made, since it is written (Deuteronomy 4:2): "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it." Therefore it was unlawful to make a symbol as a rule of faith, after the Holy Writ had once been published.

[…]

Reply to Objection 1. The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ, diffusely, under various modes of expression, and sometimes obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs long study and practice, which are unattainable by all those who require to know the truth of faith, many of whom have no time for study, being busy with other affairs. And so it was necessary to gather together a clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to be proposed to the belief of all. This indeed was no addition to Holy Writ, but something taken from it.
It seems Newman is arguing there is an addition: the contributions of our own independent human reasoning.
Reply
#85
(10-26-2012, 03:46 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: But Vetus, you know there are things High Church Protestants believe which were settled either before scripture was codified, or after the Apostles were dead and gone (i.e., they believe in doctrines which find their origin not with Scripture).

Such as...? Beliefs that cannot be supported from the Scriptures cannot be construed as doctrines of the faith.

Quote:The truth is we don't know the extent of what the Apostles explicitly taught.

If we didn't know the extent of the Apostolic teaching, then our faith would be in constant mutation and in hopeless uncertainty. However, we do know it because it was delivered to us in the Scriptures. Irenaeus is clear on that:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed 'perfect knowledge,' as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." (Against Heresies, 3.1.1.)

Quote:Silence does not prove that these doctrines do not go back to the Twelve.

Silence doesn't prove anything pertaining matters of faith, only the word of God does. Listen to Tertullian:

"Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground." (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chap. 3)

Or Origen:

"But as it is not sufficient, in the discussion of matters of such importance, to entrust the decision to human senses and to the human understanding, and to pronounce on things invisible as if they were seen by us, we must, in order to establish the positions which we have laid down, adduce the testimony of Holy Scripture. And that this testimony may produce a sure and unhesitating belief, either with regard to what we have still to advance, or to what has already been stated, it seems necessary to show, in the first place, that the Scriptures themselves are divine, i.e., were inspired by the Spirit of God. We shall therefore with all possible brevity draw forth from the Holy Scriptures themselves, such evidence on this point as may produce upon us a suitable impression, (making our quotations) from Moses, the first legislator of the Hebrew nation, and from the words of Jesus Christ, the Author and Chief of the Christian religious system." (De Principiis, Book IV, Chap. 1.1.)

Or Dionysius of Alexandria:

"Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavoured as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with the hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures." (The Church History of Eusebius, Book 7, Chap. 24)

Or Athanasius himself:

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (Councils of Arminium and Seleucia, Part I History of the Councils, 6)

Or Hilary of Poitiers:

"How I admire you, lord Constantius, as a man of blessed and religious will who yearns for a creed only according to the scriptures! Very rightly do you haste towards those utterances of the Only-begotten God so that the breast holding an emperor's cares may be full with the awareness of divine words. He who rejects this is anti-Christ, he who feigns it is anathema...Hear it not from new pamphlets, but God's books." (Liber II, Ad Constantium, 8 )

"Hear, I beg you, what the Bible says of Christ, lest what it does not say be preached instead. Bend your ears to what I shall say from the Scriptures." (Liber II, Ad Constantium, 10)

Or Cyril of Jerusalem:

"Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV.17)
Reply
#86
(10-26-2012, 04:26 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 03:46 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Furthermore, it is a hard sell that all that pertains to Christ, His Life, and mission, are contained just in the Scriptures.
St. John admitted so himself in the last verse of his gospel:
Jn. 21:25 Wrote:there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

That's not an admission that there are things we ought to believe in order to be saved that were not written and handed down to us in the Scriptures. Certainly, not all of Christ's life was written down, only that which was sufficient for us to know and believe in Him and have life in his name. St. John himself wrote in that same gospel, a chapter earlier: "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31)

The gospels are sufficient unto salvation.
Reply
#87
(10-26-2012, 04:21 PM)Geremia Wrote: Why would you want to settle for what is less explicit?

The Immaculate Conception or the Assumption weren't "less explicit," they simply weren't there.

Quote:If you mortally sin against the faith and outwardly profess the heresy, then you excommunicate yourself and are no longer Christian.

You don't need to outwardly express heresy in order to forfeit the faith. That is only necessary in order for the ecclesiastical penalties to apply. Inwardly, once you obstinately assent to heresy you no longer have the faith and cannot be a member of a body you don't belong to.

Arians weren't Christians, even before Nicea defined Christ's consubstantiality with the Father. Scripture already condemned them.
Reply
#88
(10-26-2012, 04:10 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I appreciate the replies form Geremia and Walty (and others).

But I'm not having a crisis of faith, I accept what Ott wrote, and I accept all Catholic teaching.

My problem is that it seems like a blatant contradiction to accept this and deny that doctrine develops. Not changes in any sense of contradiction, not that doctrines are made new, or pulled out of thin air. But develop.

So my real question is:

-the Protestant view seems consistent (at least consistent in rejecting anything after the Apostles, and rejecting the IC and Assumption -- there are other problems with Protestantism)

-the St. Vincent of Lerins / Newman view of doctrinal development seems consistent

-the stricter Bishop Tissier way does not make sense, that Newman is wrong. The idea that the only development is in our understanding of what is already revealed is hard to square with the history of the IC. In other threads we see the traditional emphasis on St. Thomas as a teacher par excellence. And he never said, "well the IC happened, but I don't see how yet," and then later understanding deepened. He actually denied it (inconsistently)!

so what's the problem with Newman?

I think "development" and "coming to a greater understanding" are pretty much interchangeable when we talk about various doctrines of the Church. Doctrines can "develop" in that they can be clarified through infallible definitions, which is the highest point that can be reached. An example of this is the doctrine of the Eucharist. The Church of course has always held and taught that Christ is present in the Eucharist; but transubstantiation was taught much later in the Council of Florence, and later infallibly defined by the Council of Trent; to clarify the teaching against the various heretics. The Councils utilized the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas to clarify the teaching. This happened also with the Immaculate Conception, which was defined using the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas.

On St. Thomas, there is theologians on both sides of the argument in regards to whether he affirmed or decided against the Immaculate Conception. But, nevertheless, it was his principles that proved it. So to make a sweeping claim that he "denied the Immaculate Conception" is rash, and incorrect.
Reply
#89
(10-26-2012, 08:33 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 04:26 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 03:46 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Furthermore, it is a hard sell that all that pertains to Christ, His Life, and mission, are contained just in the Scriptures.
St. John admitted so himself in the last verse of his gospel:
Jn. 21:25 Wrote:there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

That's not an admission that there are things we ought to believe in order to be saved that were not written and handed down to us in the Scriptures.
Revelation is complete, yes,
John 14:26 Wrote:But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
(10-26-2012, 08:33 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Certainly, not all of Christ's life was written down, only that which was sufficient for us to know and believe in Him and have life in his name. St. John himself wrote in that same gospel, a chapter earlier: "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31)

The gospels are sufficient unto salvation.
So Christ's sending the Paraclete was in vain?
Reply
#90
(10-26-2012, 09:30 PM)Geremia Wrote: So Christ's sending the Paraclete was in vain?

It was the sending of the Paraclete that enabled the Apostles to preach all truth and then commit it to writing.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)