Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 29 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:27 pm 
Online
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2329
Location: Fort Worth
Religion: Catholic
Alexandros wrote:
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.


This may be where Horn needs to clarify. Speculation sometimes looks like doctrine.

_________________
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: Wed Jan 01, 2020 5:40 am 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6660
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
Whatever the case may be, "doctrinal change" can easily be interpreted as a Modernist (heretical) position.

People need to stop trying to change well established words or flirt with ambiguity, it's imprudent and dangerous. Horn can take the phrase "doctrine can change" and twist it to mean something orthodox all day long, it's still asinine and dangerous to take heretical sounding phrases and trumpet them about with an orthodox interpretation because you happen to change the definition of X, Y, and Z.

I looked up Horn and he is with Catholic Answers it seems? Hopefully he stops being so careless and reckless with his choice of words to such a large audience.

_________________
-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: Wed Jan 01, 2020 7:41 am 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76276
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Alexandros wrote:
Whatever the case may be, "doctrinal change" can easily be interpreted as a Modernist (heretical) position


Be interpreted as? It's undeniably heretical. If any change whatsoever occurs and by definition this is not development. Development is making something more of what it is change is transforming one thing into another thing.

In his famous essay on the topic Cardinal Newman spends an enormous amount of time distinguishing between true development and evolution. development is when something becomes more what it is to begin with evolution is when it changes from one thing into another thing. Newman provide several of what he calls "notes" to distinguish a development from an innovation or an evolution.

Perhaps coming from a mathematical background I understand this better than most people but there's a real sense in which even though the appearances of mathematical throws change the actual content never does. Mathematical research consists of achieving the deeper and deeper and deeper level of understanding what is already known. sometimes new ideas and new things are introduced along the way but they're just tools to help you achieve a deep for understanding of something you already have. Serums develop but they never evolve. you never reach a point where a particular theorem say the Pythagorean theorem suddenly becomes false although you can see something like the Pythagorean theorem in a new context and achieve a deeper or more general understanding of it.

_________________
Excelsior!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 11:23 am 
Online
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2329
Location: Fort Worth
Religion: Catholic
Doom wrote:
Be interpreted as? It's undeniably heretical. If any change whatsoever occurs and by definition this is not development. Development is making something more of what it is change is transforming one thing into another thing.

In his famous essay on the topic Cardinal Newman spends an enormous amount of time distinguishing between true development and evolution. development is when something becomes more what it is to begin with evolution is when it changes from one thing into another thing. Newman provide several of what he calls "notes" to distinguish a development from an innovation or an evolution.

Perhaps coming from a mathematical background I understand this better than most people but there's a real sense in which even though the appearances of mathematical throws change the actual content never does. Mathematical research consists of achieving the deeper and deeper and deeper level of understanding what is already known. sometimes new ideas and new things are introduced along the way but they're just tools to help you achieve a deep for understanding of something you already have. Serums develop but they never evolve. you never reach a point where a particular theorem say the Pythagorean theorem suddenly becomes false although you can see something like the Pythagorean theorem in a new context and achieve a deeper or more general understanding of it.


Evolution is more aggressive than change. In common language, we've all used the word change to note a small augmentation. Changing something that doesn't turn into something else. But we also use it and understand it the way you noted.........to mean something else.

Probably best not to use that word at all to avoid confusion. :scratch:

_________________
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 Jan 02, 2020 2:33 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15374
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
Doom and I are saying the same thing. ....And so that has to be the correct answer. :)

And yes, I agree that the word 'change' ought not be used in order to avoid confusion.

'evolve' isn't more aggressive than 'change'.
'evolve' is synonymous with 'develop'.

Is it true that pink is a shade of red? .... that's evolution/development of the understanding of red.
Is it true that blue is a shade of red? .... that would be change, because there is not one drop of blue in any shade/tone of red.

well... maybe not the best example, but you get what i'm saying i hope.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 3:03 pm 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76276
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Evolution is the opposite of development. An acorn develops into a tree. But a fish evolves into a snake.

_________________
Excelsior!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Development of Doctrine in early history
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 3:09 pm 
Online
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2329
Location: Fort Worth
Religion: Catholic
tAnGo wrote:
Doom and I are saying the same thing. ....And so that has to be the correct answer. :)

And yes, I agree that the word 'change' ought not be used in order to avoid confusion.

'evolve' isn't more aggressive than 'change'.
'evolve' is synonymous with 'develop'.

Is it true that pink is a shade of red? .... that's evolution/development of the understanding of red.
Is it true that blue is a shade of red? .... that would be change, because there is not one drop of blue in any shade/tone of red.

well... maybe not the best example, but you get what i'm saying i hope.


It sounds like Newman was going to great lengths to make a distinction between development and evolution as Doom noted. Given that fact, I don’t know how they can be synonymous.

_________________
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 Jan 02, 2020 3:13 pm 
Online
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2329
Location: Fort Worth
Religion: Catholic
Doom wrote:
Evolution is the opposite of development. An acorn develops into a tree. But a fish evolves into a snake.

I always understood evolution to work both ways. Which is why I would see it as more synonymous with change than development.

Something can transform into something and die as a result of the transformation.

_________________
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 Jan 02, 2020 5:44 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15374
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
Doom wrote:
Evolution is the opposite of development. An acorn develops into a tree. But a fish evolves into a snake.


well, yeah, ok ... good point.


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


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: