The development of Doctrine

[MoreCoffee]

For instance, on this particular question I've gotten a long response about "Invincible Ignorance". With some saying that if someone has tried to convince you that the Catholic church is "necessary" and refuse to join then you no longer have an excuse. When that happens "invincible ignorance" is no longer in play. While others, like you, say that if you accept the fact that the Catholic church is necessary and refuse to join then you no longer have an excuse.

It is as if you tempt God to condemn you by taking the course that you describe. It is not wise to tempt the Lord our God.

 

[Lanman87]

It is as if you tempt God to condemn you by taking the course that you describe. It is not wise to tempt the Lord our God.

How on earth is listening to apologist on Catholic teaching, and not agreeing with them, tempting God to condemn me?

 

[Josiah]

@Lanman87

Well @MoreCoffee is good to suggest we look to the latest edition of the ever-changing Catholic Catechism for the current teachings of the individual Catholic Church. My edition is from the 1990's so I don't know if it's current . And the CCC claims nothing about old, out-of-date ones that people may have read or have. If you asked ten Catholics a question about the doctrine or morality taught by the RCC, you'll likely get 10 different answers so the CCC is a better source.

But there's several things you should know about the CCC...

1. It's EIGHT HUNDRED PAGES long, containing some TWO THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED, SIXTY-FIVE individual teaching points (with a few unquoted Scripture footnotes here and there on rare occasion). 800 pages long. 2,865 teachings. In very technical in its language; it's hard reading.

2. So, it's not so surprising that very, very few Catholics have actually READ it.... much less study or know it. Very few. I have, but I'm not sure I know of even one Catholic lay person that also has. Maybe, but not that I know of. IF they have one at all, it's a REFERENCE book, like a dictionary, but rarely even that. That's what it was in my home: on a shelf but never used.

3. While the denomination has given the current one it's stamp of approval, it's NOT official. It's meant to be a non-official summery for laity... which is why it can justify its constant changing of it while insisting (wrongly) that it's doctrine doesn't change. And remember: It's translated into many, many languages... and the translations are not approved. So don't be surprised if you ask a question about the very technical, precise language of a point and be told "well, that's a bad translation." I know; been there. And a Catholic may quote from some older Catechism (sometimes they will quote a reference number that doesn't match the one in your catechism).


BTW, Lutherans may also refer some to their Catechism. But it's perhaps 10 pages long (and most of that not doctrine) and there's only one, it's never been revised or changed or edited.



Blessings on your Easter season..


- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But there's several things you should know about the CCC...

1. It's EIGHT HUNDRED PAGES long

Nope, the CCC is 688 pages long, the standard edition is copyright 1997.

2. So, it's not so surprising that very, very few Catholics have actually READ it.... much less study or know it.

Nearly every Catholic who has participated in RCIA (rite of Christian initiation of Adults) has read the CCC either in whole or in parts covering all significant Catholic teaching and liturgical practises.

3. While the denomination has given the current one it's stamp of approval, it's NOT official. It's meant to be a non-official summery for laity...

The opening paragraphs say:

With today's promulgation of the Latin typical edition, therefore, the task of composing the Catechism, begun in 1986, is brought to a close and the desire of the aforementioned Extraordinary Synod of Bishops is happily fulfilled. The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a "valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" and as a "sure norm for teaching the faith," as well as a "sure and authentic reference text" for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).​

​

Catechesis will find in this genuine, systematic presentation of the faith and of Catholic doctrine a totally reliable way to present, with renewed fervour, each and every part of the Christian message to the people of our time. This text will provide every catechist with sound help for communicating the one, perennial deposit of faith within the local Church, while seeking, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to link the wondrous unity of the Christian mystery with the varied needs and conditions of those to whom this message is addressed. All catechetical activity will be able to experience a new, widespread impetus among the People of God, if it can properly use and appreciate this post-conciliar Catechism.​

​

All this seems even more important today with the approach of the third millennium. For an extraordinary commitment to evangelization is urgently needed so that everyone can know and receive the Gospel message and thus grow "to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:13).​

​

I therefore strongly urge my Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate, for whom the Catechism is primarily intended, to take the excellent opportunity afforded by the promulgation of this Latin edition to intensify their efforts to disseminate the text more widely and to ensure that it is well received as an outstanding gift for the communities entrusted to them, which will thus be able to rediscover the inexhaustible riches of the faith.​

​

Through the harmonious and complementary efforts of all the ranks of the People of God, may this Catechism be known and shared by everyone, so that the unity in faith whose supreme model and origin is found in the Unity of the Trinity may be strengthened and extended to the ends of the earth.​

​

To Mary, Mother of Christ, whose Assumption body and soul into heaven we celebrate today, I entrust these wishes so that they may be brought to fulfilment for the spiritual good of all humanity.​

From Castel Gandolfo, August 15, 1997, the nineteenth year of the Pontificate.​

​

​

​

Copyright © Libreria Editrice Vaticana​

 

[Castle Church]

Nope, the CCC is 688 pages long, the standard edition is copyright 1997.

My copy is 755 pages (not including the index). I suspect they can vary in length based on a number of factors. Suffice to say that it is LONG. I find the length to be a strength as it covers most questions the laity may have.

Nearly every Catholic who has participated in RCIA (rite of Christian initiation of Adults) has read the CCC either in whole or in parts covering all significant Catholic teaching and liturgical practises.

Not my RCIA, it may have been mentioned a few times, but were not given one nor necessarily told/requested to buy one, although that would be a good idea. I suppose the statement "...or in parts" is broad enough to cover even a cursory mention from a passage. My RCIA certainly did not go through the CCC for the "significant Catholic teaching and liturgical practises.", not to say they did not review it, but it was not through the lens of the CCC.

 

[Josiah]

My copy is 755 pages (not including the index). I suspect they can vary in length based on a number of factors. Suffice to say that it is LONG. I find the length to be a strength as it covers most questions the laity may have.

@Castle Church
@MoreCoffee


Of course. Depending on the font, etc., the latest unofficial printed tome of a Catholic Catechism will vary in the number of pages. Mine is about 800 pages (including index, etc.), evidently our Catholic brother's tome is a bit under 700 pages, yours is 755 pages (not including index, etc.). THE POINT: it's huge. No matter the tome format, there's TWO THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED, SIXTY-FIVE paragraphs/points/teachings long.

And there's not just one, there are many, many DIFFERENT Catholic Catechisms - always changing and evolving; none of them official (although there's often at least one that has some authoritative stamp of approval on it). And yes, all the various evolving and changing Catholic Catechisms are meant primarily to be a resource for laity.

And while I believe our friend's claim that he's at least READ all TWO THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED, SIXTY-FIVE teachings in the edition he has... all 688 pages of this... I know that very, very few of the Catholics known to me have done so. I have.... but I'm not sure I could list 5 Catholics personally known to me that claim they have.

IF a Catholic has one at all (and they actually know where it is).... and that's very rare in my experience... it's a reference book, on a dusty shelf. Rather like a dictionary or almanac - but far less used.

Not my RCIA, it may have been mentioned a few times, but were not given one nor necessarily told/requested to buy one, although that would be a good idea. I suppose the statement "...or in parts" is broad enough to cover even a cursory mention from a passage. My RCIA certainly did not go through the CCC for the "significant Catholic teaching and liturgical practises.", not to say they did not review it, but it was not through the lens of the CCC.

That's my experience, too.

Our Catholic brother's claim that the Catechism is presented in RCIA classes.... well, MAYBE in Australia (I don't know) but not here. In my parish, participants in RCIA were given/sold a copy of a Catechism... and occasional references are made to things in it... but it's certainly NOT all read or presented in the class.



But to the point: It changes. Well, THEY change (there's not one, there are many DIFFERENT ones). Catholic teachings are in a constant state of changing and evolving. Catholics generally admit this - noting that new questions and issues and falsehoods arise requiring this (and I 'get' that) BUT they admit, the teachings of their singular denomination CHANGE, EVOLVE, DEVELOP. It's just absurd to try to argue otherwise.

And more importantly, Catholics are those who swallow whole all 800 pages, all TWO THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED, SIXTY-FIVE teachings of the latest edition of whatever Catholic Catechism they were sold by the parish. All of it. "With docility." That's the very precise word consistently used, "docility." NOT because these things are true.... not because they've always been taught... not because they are biblical or apostolic or Tradition.... BUT because The Catholic Church (currently) teaches it, the same Church that requires you just swallow it whole, "with docility", because IT itself claims that IT itself can't be wrong so it can't be wrong when it itself claims that it itself can't be wrong so it itself alone is not wrong. The (various, different, evolving, changing) Catechisms is WHAT Catholics are to docilicly swallow.


Now, I freely admit that the issue of Authority in Christianity is a very difficult one (I have some threads on this very thing). AND I freely admit that very few Lutherans know WELL the Lutheran Catechism (and probably also can't tell you where their edition is at). BUT it's about 12 pages long (and most of that is not doctrine) and not a word, not a dot, not a letter has changed in nearly 500 years. AND no one is asked to agree with any of it BECAUSE the Lutheran Church teaches it or Luther wrote it but rather, instead, because Scripture is given to show it's true. It's accountable; it's not the "norma normans" but the "norma normata". Apples and oranges when compared to the Catholic Catechism.

I'll also admit that Lutheran theology "evolves" a bit - far, far less than in Catholicism, but it does. When the Lutheran Confessions were written - nearly 500 years ago - the issue was Catholicism; the Lutheran Confessions are mostly vis-a-vis Catholicism, where we agree and disagree with the Catholicism that existed 500 years ago. But Christianity has changed over these 500 years. Today, Lutherans spend time addressing liberalism (perhaps more than Catholicism), Zwinglism, Arminianism/Evangelicalism, etc. But the issue of Authority still exists..... the Catholic Church points to ITSELF, Lutheranism points to Scripture (perhaps interpreted by Tradition; Luther insisted on being accountable... the Catholic Church insists that it is not (well, it is - but only to itself, and it itself can't be wrong so it's a moot issue for it itself, claims it itself).




.

 

[Josiah]

@Castle Church
@MoreCoffee

Picking up on my post above.....

I'm disappointed that SOME people equate disagreement with hate.... that I DISAGREE with a few things the individual Catholic Church (now) teaches, ergo I'm "anti-Catholic" and that I "hate" Catholics and The Catholic Church. SOME Catholics love (absolutely love) to portray things that way; rather than engage in a discussion of that teaching, they may just respond that any who disagree must be hateful.

I'm GRATEFUL for my up-bringing in the Catholic Church. I agree with probably 95% of what the Catholic Church teaches (maybe more than that) - I AGREE with Catholicism far more than most Catholics I know! My son attends a Catholic school. Yet, I've been targeted as "anti-Catholic" and said to "hate" Catholics and Catholicism - over and over again. Recently, I had a member of my Lutheran Church ask me (HALF in jest), "What if that school converts your son to Catholicism?" And I said, "I'm okay with that." She was a bit surprised by my response... but I meant it. I don't think that will happen - because our family talks often and openly about faith; he knows and will know what WE believe, but if he becomes convinced of Catholicism, well... that would be okay.

I agree with conservative/confessional/traditional Lutheranism more than Catholism, and so I'm Lutheran. But that doesn't mean ergo I HATE Catholicism. I prefer the USA to Denmark but that doesn't mean I HATE Denmark - I have friends and family there, I've been there. it's a wonderful country and Danes tend to be wonderful people. I "fit" better with the USA. I choose to live here.


Sorry for the diversion.... back to the issue.



.

 

[Stephen]

@Castle Church
@MoreCoffee


Of course. Depending on the font, etc., the latest unofficial printed tome of a Catholic Catechism will vary in the number of pages. Mine is about 800 pages (including index, etc.), evidently our Catholic brother's tome is a bit under 700 pages, yours is 755 pages (not including index, etc.). THE POINT: it's huge. No matter the tome format, there's TWO THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED, SIXTY-FIVE paragraphs/points/teachings long.

And there's not just one, there are many, many DIFFERENT Catholic Catechisms - always changing and evolving; none of them official (although there's often at least one that has some authoritative stamp of approval on it). And yes, all the various evolving and changing Catholic Catechisms are meant primarily to be a resource for laity.

And while I believe our friend's claim that he's at least READ all TWO THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED, SIXTY-FIVE teachings in the edition he has... all 688 pages of this... I know that very, very few of the Catholics known to me have done so. I have.... but I'm not sure I could list 5 Catholics personally known to me that claim they have.

IF a Catholic has one at all (and they actually know where it is).... and that's very rare in my experience... it's a reference book, on a dusty shelf. Rather like a dictionary or almanac - but far less used.



.

There is a simplified version of the Catechism called the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is much smaller but has references to the relevant sections of the full Catechism if you want to dig deeper.
It's available in an A5 size book and on the Vatican web site - Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[Stephen]

But to the point: It changes. Well, THEY change (there's not one, there are many DIFFERENT ones). Catholic teachings are in a constant state of changing and evolving. Catholics generally admit this - noting that new questions and issues and falsehoods arise requiring this (and I 'get' that) BUT they admit, the teachings of their singular denomination CHANGE, EVOLVE, DEVELOP. It's just absurd to try to argue otherwise.


.

The topic is the development of doctrine not teaching.

We can be taught many things that are not doctrine.

I do not believe that doctrine changes, only develops.

“Is there to be no development of Doctrine in Christ’s Church? Certainly there should be great development.

Who could be so grudging towards his fellow-men and so hostile to God as to try to prevent it? But care should be taken to ensure that it is development of the faith and not alteration. Development implies that each point of doctrine is expanded within itself, while alteration suggests that a thing has been changed from what it was into something different…….

The limbs of infants are tiny, while those of young men are large, but they are the same limbs. The man has no more parts to his body than the little child…as a result it can be said that nothing new is produced in old men that was not already present in an undeveloped form when they were boys…..” (St. Vincent of Lerins, 5th century)

 

[Josiah]

I do not believe that doctrine changes, only develops.

Develop = change.

expanded

Expanded = change.



.

 

[Albion]

The topic is the development of doctrine not teaching.

We can be taught many things that are not doctrine.

I do not believe that doctrine changes, only develops.

and you don't think that this is just another way of saying "changes?"

Anyway, if doctrine does "develop," it necessarily means that the institutional church is changing it.

The process doesn't cause a change in doctrine by itself. The church makes the decision about what IS Tradition at work and what is not. The obvious shortcoming in that stance is covered up by the institutional church when it also asserts that the changes it has made were authorized by God himself since, you see, that denomination teaches that it has been uniquely positioned by God to do such a thing and is infallible when doing it.

 

[Stephen]

Develop = change.




Expanded = change.



.

Depends what you mean by change in each case.

Take the example of Vincent Lerins that I gave. The limb (eg. foot) of a child is the same foot as when he/she becomes an adult. There is no change of form in that development.

Yes, there is a change in size but that is not the essence of the limb. It is expanded but nothing is added to it's form. There is nothing new that was not already present in an undeveloped form.

 

[Stephen]

and you don't think that this is just another way of saying "changes?"

Anyway, if doctrine does "develop," it necessarily means that the institutional church is changing it.

The process doesn't cause a change in doctrine by itself. The church makes the decision about what IS Tradition at work and what is not. The obvious shortcoming in that stance is covered up by the institutional church when it also asserts that the changes it has made were authorized by God himself since, you see, that denomination teaches that it has been uniquely positioned by God to do such a thing and is infallible when doing it.

See my reply to Josiah above

 

[MoreCoffee]

Develop = change.

I guess your opinions change then, today you opine this way, tomorrow you may opine differently. But is there any continuity in your opinions or does the existence of change - no matter what sort of change - mean that it's a lie to say "my views have remained the same for many decades because they are truth based."

 

[Josiah]

I guess your opinions change then

Sometimes. If there's a difference, there's a change.

it's a lie to say "my views have remained the same for many decades..."

Maybe so, but take that up with The Catholic Church.


But, to the point, I find it, well to be nice, incredible to claim that the singular Catholic Church never changes anything it has taught.... so that all 2,865 points in my REVISED, SECOND Edition, Catholic Catechism of 1995 has been stated, identically and verbatim the same since its own claim of beginning in 33 AD. That's just incredible (to be nice). Clearly it HAS changed what it teaches. Now, has it CONTRADICTED or REVERSED official DOCTRINES? That I would not dispute (although it has some moral teachings, etc., etc.) but REVERSING is not the same as CHANGING. Obviously. Undeniably. This incredible (and CLEARLY unhistorical) claim that the RCC has ALWAYS taught the same things, that it has never CHANGED a teaching... well.... it's just one more in a long, long, long list of truly absurd things SOME fundamentalist Catholics CLAIM. And it only means all those Councils, all those Papal Bulls, all those official declarations, all those Synods, that 'revised, second edition of 1995" Catechism, well... they all were a total waste of time and NOTHING whatsoever happened at them because nothing changed. Come on, my brother! Come on! OF COURSE, the RCC has developed its teachings - doctrine, morals, and otherwise - a lot, and it's still doing it. I'm not sure that's BAD (an argument can be made that growth is a good thing) but it's an incredible and clearly unhistorical claim to say the RCC never changes its teachings. Come on. You know it. I know it. We all know it.

Friend, brother.... we'll make zero progress if old, silly CLAIMS are just repeated by a few fundamentalists, ones everyone knows aren't true. And it only makes things worse and more incredible when an attempt is made to DEFEND some incredible claim by insisting "But we don't mean what we say but what we say is true!" (some Catholics specialize in that ploy). IF you want to say, "The Roman Catholic Church has never officially REVERSED itself on an official DOGMA"... well.... I'm not sure all would agree but I think we'd all give you that. But the claim of a tiny few Catholics is that it has never CHANGED a teaching. Which makes me wonder why they keep publishing DIFFERENT, CHANGED Catechisms, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc


Blessings, my brother.



.

 

[Stephen]

Sometimes. If there's a difference, there's a change.





Maybe so, but take that up with The Catholic Church.


But, to the point, I find it, well to be nice, incredible to claim that the singular Catholic Church never changes anything it has taught.... so that all 2,865 points in my REVISED, SECOND Edition, Catholic Catechism of 1995 has been stated, identically and verbatim the same since its own claim of beginning in 33 AD. That's just incredible (to be nice). Clearly it HAS changed what it teaches. Now, has it CONTRADICTED or REVERSED official DOCTRINES? That I would not dispute (although it has some moral teachings, etc., etc.) but REVERSING is not the same as CHANGING. Obviously. Undeniably. This incredible (and CLEARLY unhistorical) claim that the RCC has ALWAYS taught the same things, that it has never CHANGED a teaching... well.... it's just one more in a long, long, long list of truly absurd things SOME fundamentalist Catholics CLAIM. And it only means all those Councils, all those Papal Bulls, all those official declarations, all those Synods, that 'revised, second edition of 1995" Catechism, well... they all were a total waste of time and NOTHING whatsoever happened at them because nothing changed. Come on, my brother! Come on! OF COURSE, the RCC has developed its teachings - doctrine, morals, and otherwise - a lot, and it's still doing it. I'm not sure that's BAD (an argument can be made that growth is a good thing) but it's an incredible and clearly unhistorical claim to say the RCC never changes its teachings. Come on. You know it. I know it. We all know it.

Friend, brother.... we'll make zero progress if old, silly CLAIMS are just repeated by a few fundamentalists, ones everyone knows aren't true. And it only makes things worse and more incredible when an attempt is made to DEFEND some incredible claim by insisting "But we don't mean what we say but what we say is true!" (some Catholics specialize in that ploy). IF you want to say, "The Roman Catholic Church has never officially REVERSED itself on an official DOGMA"... well.... I'm not sure all would agree but I think we'd all give you that. But the claim of a tiny few Catholics is that it has never CHANGED a teaching. Which makes me wonder why they keep publishing DIFFERENT, CHANGED Catechisms, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc


Blessings, my brother.



.

Suppose you give me an example of where the Catholic Church has "CONTRADICTED or REVERSED official DOCTRINES"

You keep saying teachings, but as I pointed out before "The topic is the development of doctrine not teaching."

 

[Albion]

Suppose you give me an example of where the Catholic Church has "CONTRADICTED or REVERSED official DOCTRINES"

You keep saying teachings, but as I pointed out before "The topic is the development of doctrine not teaching."

For one, it invented "Papal Infallibility" only in the 19th century (splitting the church because some of its most important theologians couldn't accept this innovation.)

The fact is that Papal Infallibility had never been the doctrine, some of the most famous Popes had spoken against the notion, and Scripture is clearly silent on the matter.

 

[Stephen]

For one, it invented "Papal Infallibility" only in the 19th century (splitting the church because some of its most important theologians couldn't accept this innovation.)

The fact is that Papal Infallibility had never been the doctrine, some of the most famous Popes had spoken against the notion, and Scripture is clearly silent on the matter.

I asked for an example of where the Catholic Church has "CONTRADICTED or REVERSED official DOCTRINES".

Claiming that a doctrine is invented does not fulfill that.

 

[Albion]

I asked for an example of where the Catholic Church has "CONTRADICTED or REVERSED official DOCTRINES".

and I gave you one such example.

Claiming that a doctrine is invented does not fulfill that.

There was no such doctrine as that of Papal Infallibility prior to its promulgation in recent history, and then there was.

That's a "change" and a "contradiction" of the Church's previous stance, and it's also a "doctrine."

Here's what the Council that is termed 'Vatican I' declared:

“. . . teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, on the exercise of his office, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by divine assistance, infallibility. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not by consent of the Church, irreformable. So, then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition, let him be anathema.”

 

[Josiah]

Suppose you give me an example of where the Catholic Church has "CONTRADICTED or REVERSED official DOCTRINES"

@Stephen

Brother, IF you actually read what I posted, I specifically stated that I would NOT challenge that the Catholic Church has "CONTRADICTED or REVERSED official DOCTRINES." I would NOT challenge THAT claim. But THAT claim is not made, we're not discussing THAT claim because that's NOT the claim that's made.

The claim is that the individual Catholic Church has not CHANGED it's doctrines/teachings. You parrot this absurd claim but (as we've all noted) you have not even tried to support your claim (and we both know why).

We're discussing whether your church has changed teachings... or if it just verbatim repeats the exact same words since 33 AD (when it claims it began), nothing added or subtracted or reworded, NOT changed? THAT'S the issue before us. Has there been changes or not? If something is different, then obviously there have been changes. Obviously. Undeniably. So, unless you hold that claims made by the Catholic Church and/or by Catholics are unaccountable - just right cuz they can't be wrong - and I strongly suspect that's the case, then your task is to show that the Catholic Church has stated the identical, verbatim, word-for-word, same things as contained in my "REVISED, SECOND EDITION," 1994, Catholic Catechism - all 2,865 paragraphs of it - since 33 AD when it claims it was founded... on 33 AD, it stated the identical, verbatim 2,865 paragraphs. But you won't prove that. And everyone (including you) knows why. Your claim is... well.... we know. Amazing you are holding to it (avoiding any thought of proving it true) when it's SO obvious, SO undeniable, that it's just, well.... you know. We all do.



.