Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 2   [ 29 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:45 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2468
Religion: Catholic
I'm in a talk with anti-VII, this is the worst Pope, Latin Mass solves everything..........Catholic. Perhaps some are here in the forum. My question is with regard to development of doctrine and whether such a teaching is found in early history. Or at least when was the earliest the Church started to talk about it with some clarity?

_________________
Everything in the universe has its being not only from God but also toward God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:12 am 
Offline
Jr. Wazzooship-Winning Moderator
Jr. Wazzooship-Winning Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:18 pm
Posts: 19371
Location: Just visiting this planet.
Religion: Finally Catholic!
Church Affiliations: Legion of Mary, SVdP
Pardon me for being a little thick - maybe I'm undercaffeinated, still. But what exactly did you mean by "it" in your last sentence? :scratch:

_________________
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." --Douglas Adams

Image

Commit to the Image

formerly "ghall512"--Thanks for the idea, arkcatholic! :clap:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:18 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 9598
Location: India
Religion: Catholic (Syro Malabar)
Saint Vincent of Lerins (died c. 445)
Commonitory
for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith

Chapter 23.
On Development in Religious Knowledge.

[54.] But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

[55.] The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.

[56.] In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age.................

_________________
"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline
Prodigal Son of Thunder
Prodigal Son of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:54 am
Posts: 40412
Location: Ithilien
Religion: Dunedain Catholic
Church Affiliations: AWC, CSB, UIGSE-FSE (FNE)
Dominic wrote:
I'm in a talk with anti-VII, this is the worst Pope, Latin Mass solves everything..........Catholic. Perhaps some are here in the forum. My question is with regard to development of doctrine and whether such a teaching is found in early history. Or at least when was the earliest the Church started to talk about it with some clarity?

One can see doctrine developing very early in Church history, but where we see doctrine "developing" today is nothing of the sort. Doctrine "develops" in that it becomes more clear or that it becomes something greater -- more detailed or more explicit -- than it was before. It doesn't mean that X can develop into ~X.

_________________
Formerly Bagheera

"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the King." (1 Peter 2:17)
Federation of North-American Explorers - North Star Group - How You Can Help


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:57 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2468
Religion: Catholic
Peregrinator wrote:
Dominic wrote:
I'm in a talk with anti-VII, this is the worst Pope, Latin Mass solves everything..........Catholic. Perhaps some are here in the forum. My question is with regard to development of doctrine and whether such a teaching is found in early history. Or at least when was the earliest the Church started to talk about it with some clarity?

One can see doctrine developing very early in Church history, but where we see doctrine "developing" today is nothing of the sort. Doctrine "develops" in that it becomes more clear or that it becomes something greater -- more detailed or more explicit -- than it was before. It doesn't mean that X can develop into ~X.

I understand......However the person I'm talking to believes this to be an innovation and claims there is no evidence of early Christians believing in such a thing.

_________________
Everything in the universe has its being not only from God but also toward God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:07 pm 
Offline
Prodigal Son of Thunder
Prodigal Son of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:54 am
Posts: 40412
Location: Ithilien
Religion: Dunedain Catholic
Church Affiliations: AWC, CSB, UIGSE-FSE (FNE)
OK, well, this person is going to have a hard time reconciling things then.

_________________
Formerly Bagheera

"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the King." (1 Peter 2:17)
Federation of North-American Explorers - North Star Group - How You Can Help


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:45 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2468
Religion: Catholic
Peregrinator wrote:
OK, well, this person is going to have a hard time reconciling things then.

Well, not necessarily. They would be no different then Eastern Orthodox that claim to not believe in it.

_________________
Everything in the universe has its being not only from God but also toward God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76478
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Dominic wrote:
Peregrinator wrote:
OK, well, this person is going to have a hard time reconciling things then.

Well, not necessarily. They would be no different then Eastern Orthodox that claim to not believe in it.


And they have great difficulty reconciling things.

_________________
Excelsior!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:32 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 9:15 am
Posts: 4883
Religion: Catholic
People who claim there is no development of doctrine either don't understand the concept or they understand it and want to change the meaning Humpty Dumpty style to meet some prejudice they have.

Any ecumenical council of the patristic era would be doctrinal development.

_________________
http://www.popinainteasy.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:11 pm 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6666
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
Dominic wrote:
Peregrinator wrote:
Dominic wrote:
I'm in a talk with anti-VII, this is the worst Pope, Latin Mass solves everything..........Catholic. Perhaps some are here in the forum. My question is with regard to development of doctrine and whether such a teaching is found in early history. Or at least when was the earliest the Church started to talk about it with some clarity?

One can see doctrine developing very early in Church history, but where we see doctrine "developing" today is nothing of the sort. Doctrine "develops" in that it becomes more clear or that it becomes something greater -- more detailed or more explicit -- than it was before. It doesn't mean that X can develop into ~X.

I understand......However the person I'm talking to believes this to be an innovation and claims there is no evidence of early Christians believing in such a thing.



You may need to elaborate more, do you have an example?

Perhaps they are conflating evolution and development? Perhaps they think doctrinal statements do become more explicit as time goes on and if the situation demands it, but maybe he is rejecting the term "development" on some faulty misconception (I am thinking of First Vatican Council’s treatment of this subject).

If they are anti-Vatican II and the "Latin Mass fixes everything," then it sounds like they accepted the outcome of the Pontificate of Pius IX and hence, they are not what they claim to be.

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:01 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 am
Posts: 831
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
Dominic: Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:45 am
My question is with regard to development of doctrine and whether such a teaching is found in early history. Or at least when was the earliest the Church started to talk about it with some clarity?

The development of doctrine takes place as Christ foreshadowed when He proclaimed:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) "The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." (John 14:26) "But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you." (John 16:13-15)

Often a dogma or doctrine is infallibly defined after the need is identified through a dispute over what should be believed (faith – the Trinity) or how we should act (morals -- contraception).

In Mysterium Ecclesiae, (CDF, 1973, #5): “For this reason also it often happens that ancient dogmatic formulas and others closely connected with them remain living and fruitful in the habitual usage of the Church, but with suitable expository and explanatory additions that maintain and clarify their original meaning. In addition, it has sometimes happened that in this habitual usage of the Church certain of these formulas gave way to new expressions which, proposed and approved by the Sacred Magisterium, presented more clearly or more completely the same meaning.” This was seen in John XXIII”s opening address of Vatican II, using the words of St Vincent of Lerins, and Vatican I -- "with the same meaning and the same sense."

“ ‘Doctrinal development’ is just the name for the process by which the Church reaches certitude that a given proposition, p, states exactly what God has said and hence may be proposed to the faithful as obligatory for belief.” William H Marshner, Reasons For Hope, Christendom College Press 1982, p 177).

The meaning of dogmas is succinctly stated by the great Romano Guardini: “And heresy consists in precisely this – the arbitrary selection of certain aspects of sacred truth. Dogma opposes this tendency, and safeguards the fullness of revelation.” (The Faith And Modern Man, Burns Oates, 1952, p 146).

John Henry Newman writes that the revealed Word of God (or deposit of faith), considered precisely “in itself or objectively” is “in the form of dogma”….the whole Church’s grasp of Christianity is “objective” insofar as it has passed “into dogmas”. (Reasons For Hope, Christendom Press 1982, Ed Jeff Mirus, p 172).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:06 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2468
Religion: Catholic
I wanted to resurrect this given the recent discussion between Trent Horn and Tim Gordon.

Trent notes that doctrine can change, Tim says that it cannot change. I suspected they were talking about little d doctrine vs big D doctrine but I am not so sure about that.

They also had a slightly different hermeneutical approach to development. Neither denying it, but they were coming to slightly different conclusions.
Any insight would be helpful.

_________________
Everything in the universe has its being not only from God but also toward God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:04 pm 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6666
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
Little “d” doctrines? What are those? And they can change?

I don’t know who Trent Horn is or the debate in question, but that sounds ridiculous. This sounds worse than the concept of “little ‘t’ traditions” wherein justification arises to trash them wherever it’s convenient to fulfill a novel desire.

A doctrine is a truth, it cannot change.
Theological speculation on a certain subject can have more force and influence at certain times, but speculation does not always equate to a doctrine.

Pope St. Pius X teaches the following, note the direct quotes of the First Vatican Council:

Quote:
We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ”Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason”; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ”The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.” Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: “Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries — but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.”


I think Trent Horn is trying to take the word “doctrine” and make it mean more than it is traditionally defined as. This is asinine and dangerous.

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:09 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 83642
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Horn is usually not sloppy; I would want to know exactly what Horn said.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:47 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2468
Religion: Catholic
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Horn is usually not sloppy; I would want to know exactly what Horn said.


That's always been my experience with Horn as well.

I listed to it on Stitcher with his first conversation he had with Tim Gordon on feminism.

I'll dig it up and see if I can write it down.

_________________
Everything in the universe has its being not only from God but also toward God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:46 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15453
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
sounds like it depends on what the understanding of "change" and/or "developed" is to both sides of the argument.
it's one thing to discuss whether doctrine did or did not develop over time. It's something else to discuss whether V2 was a 'development' or a 'change' to doctrine (in the grander scheme of things).

those are two totally different questions, and it might be why you're having a hard time with the person you're discussing all this with.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:01 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2468
Religion: Catholic
Even in the word change it's sometimes take to mean that it became something else.

If you add something to a sentence is that a change? Well yes, but it can also be a development depending on what it is.

Change doesn't necessarily mean it turns into the opposite.

So there is that.

_________________
Everything in the universe has its being not only from God but also toward God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:43 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15453
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
Dominic wrote:
Even in the word change it's sometimes take to mean that it became something else.

If you add something to a sentence is that a change? Well yes, but it can also be a development depending on what it is.

Change doesn't necessarily mean it turns into the opposite.

So there is that.


yes, exactly.

if you started off saying "X is truth" and then you later say, "Y now supplants X, and now Y is true and X is not true," then that's what I would call "change."
If you say "X is truth" and then come back later to say, "X is still true, but over time, we've come to a deeper understanding of X such that we can now definitively say that both X and Y are true," then that's what I would call "development."

The crux of the matter is when one side says "X and Y are true" and yet it appears to the other side that X and Y are either contradictory and/or cannot be reconciled.

That's the problem with V2, and we've discussed that here ad nauseam.
What does V2 really say? Well a common man's understanding of X is _______, which reconciles with the past, but the way X is put into actual practice [in some places], then the action/practice thwarts the common man's understanding of X to the extent that it does NOT appear that X can be reconciled with the past.... therefore, that's "change" and not "development." And next thing you know, the argument goes, "Well, the problem is with the implementation, and not the documents of V2 themselves!" ..... followed by, "Well, how could it be implemented that way if the documents couldn't be read or understood that way?!? ..... on and on it goes.

When 'change' comes under the guise of 'development' then you have problems and confusion, and that's what I (personally) think V2 was all about.

It goes far beyond just the implementation of pauline mass... in fact, i would go so far as to say that a simple "return to the TLM" won't actually work because the TLM doesn't fit with the world of the novus ordo, quite frankly. I'm lacking the proper words to express my thoughts here, but the idea is like....

diesel gas works in diesel car.
unleaded gas works in unleaded car.
diesel gas does not work in unleaded car.
unleaded gas does not work in diesel car.

if they wanted just to have the Mass in the vernacular, then I don't see why they necessarily could not have done and accomplished that. but that's not what happened. the actual rite of the mass was changed, not 'arose out of development'. it would be one thing to say, "we have developed a deeper understanding of _____ and now declare that it is not necessary for the Mass to be offered in Latin, although it is still proper that Latin usage be retained and preferred." It's quite something else to say, "we have a developed a deeper understanding of the (Latin) Mass such that we need to set that aside and disallow its use, and replace it with a whole new rite."

Only the fathers of V2 could come up with a brand new rite of Mass and try to pawn it as "this is actually not new because it's closer to how things were done in the catacombs." ....smh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:57 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2468
Religion: Catholic
I still need to go back and re-listen to Trent Horn and Tim Gordon talk but I believe Trent used limbo as an example of doctrine changing.

And by change, he seemed to imply that he means it was held as credible doctrine......to no longer. That would indeed be a problem.

I hope I misunderstood him.

_________________
Everything in the universe has its being not only from God but also toward God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:15 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15453
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
yeah, limbo might be a good example of something to look at...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 2   [ 29 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: