The development of Doctrine

[MoreCoffee]

The claim is that the individual Catholic Church has not CHANGED it's doctrines/teachings.

The Catholic Church hasn't changed its dogmatic statements of doctrine. Yet the Church continues to offer teaching and explanations that are suitable for the times and cultures in which it works. The development of doctrine is not about changing dogma. It is about clarifying issues that new times and new cultures raise regarding specific dogmas.

 

[Josiah]

development

.... is changing.


.

 

[Stephen]

and I gave you one such example.

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.”

I know what Vatican 1 stated.

If, as you claim, the doctrine was invented at Vatican 1 then it it cannot have changed. There was nothing to change from.

 

[Stephen]

@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.



.

The title of this thread is The development of DOCTRINE.

 

[Stephen]

.... is changing.


.

As I pointed out before:

Depends what you mean by change.

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.

 

[Albion]

I know what Vatican 1 stated.

Well, it's out in the open now.

If, as you claim, the doctrine was invented at Vatican 1 then it it cannot have changed.

Yes, it can. And that's because your church makes Tradition be the basis for doctrine, in addition to Holy Scripture. Further, there is no doubt that infallibility, which the church claims for itself, had long been recognized as residing with the whole church, operating through ecumenical councils and consensus. That concept was altered with Vatican I's pronouncement that the Pope himself could make infallible decisions with regard to doctrine.

 

[MoreCoffee]

As I pointed out before:

Depends what you mean by change.

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.

What you have is an Anglican and a Lutheran attempting to teach you what Catholicism "really teaches". It isn't worth too much, really.

 

[Stephen]

Well, it's out in the open now.

Yes, it can. And that's because your church makes Tradition be the basis for doctrine, in addition to Holy Scripture. Further, there is no doubt that infallibility, which the church claims for itself, had long been recognized as residing with the whole church, operating through ecumenical councils and consensus. That concept was altered with Vatican I's pronouncement that the Pope himself could make infallible decisions with regard to doctrine.

A claim you make with no evidence.

Also for something to change it must exist. If it did not exist before it was created then it cannot be said to have changed.

 

[Albion]

A claim you make with no evidence.

I certainly did provide evidence, and if you truly understand your own denomination's history and beliefs, I should have been given something more substantial in reply than what you've offered here. An attempted rebuttal of some of the information I provided, for example. (?)

Also for something to change it must exist.

Yes, and I explained how, in the case of the change I referred to, it did exist. In fact, it's well-known.

 

[Albion]

What you have an an Anglican and a Lutheran attempting to teach you what Catholicism "really teaches". It isn't worth too much, really.

Both of whom have more personal experience with the Roman Catholic Church's history and beliefs than I'm seeing in the posts put up by the Roman Catholics contributing to this thread.

 

[Stephen]

I certainly did provide evidence, and if you truly understand your own denomination's history and beliefs, I should have been given something more substantial in reply than what you've offered here. An attempted rebuttal of some of the information I provided, for example. (?)

No, just claims

Yes, and I explained how, in the case of the change I referred to, it did exist. In fact, it's well-known.

No you didn't.

 

[Josiah]

What you have an an Anglican and a Lutheran attempting to teach you what Catholicism "really teaches". It isn't worth too much, really.

@MoreCoffee

No. What we have are people who don't just swallow whole ("with docility") WHATEVER the RCC itself claims for itself - no matter how absurd.

The claim at least of a few fundamentalist Catholics is that the Catholic Church never CHANGES what it teaches. Now, I realize no Catholic here as even attempted to show there's an ounce of truth in that (because that's not how fundamentalistic Catholicism works) but the claim would be profoundly simple to prove is true. All you'd need to do is present an official, authorized Catechism from 33 AD (when it's claimed your denomination began) and show that it's identical, verbatim, word-for-word the same as what is contained in my 800 page 'SECOND EDITION, REVISED, 1994 Catholic Catechism... all 2,865 points of teaching in it. Just show: SAME - SAME. Then the claim would be shown to be true. But you won't do that.... in part because the claim simply isn't true and (more importantly) because in Catholicism, what the Catholic Church says/claims isn't accountable, not subject to the issue of truth.

Of course, obviously, undeniably.... the teachings of the RCC have evolved, changed, developed - the official, authorized Catechism of 33 AD is NOT identical, verbatim, word-for-word the same as the 1994 revised, second edition one. I know that, you know that. All those Councils and Synods were not a pure waste of time because NOTHING changed: it just stated verbatim what it said before - not a letter, not a dot different. All those Papal Bulls, all those declarations, all those countless revisions of the Catechism were not a waste of time because NOTHING changed - not a letter was added, not a dot removed, not anything CHANGED. Your claim is silly on the face of it. OF COURSE it's teachings have changed, evolved, developed! Not that that's necessarily bad, not at all! I solid case can be made that was/is both necessarily and good. But your parroting the claim of the opposite is... well.... you know. I'm SURE you know. You swallow it whole "with docility" because you are Catholic - I totally get it - but you should not be surprised that others realize the obvious.

for something to change it must exist. If it did not exist before it was created then it cannot be said to have changed.

@Stephen

Absurd. If something doesn't exist... and then does... then OBVIOUSLY, UNDENIABLY, there's a change. Of course; you know that.




.

 

[Albion]

No. What we have are people who don't just swallow whole ("with docility") WHATEVER the RCC itself claims for itself - no matter how absurd.

At the same time, that very sense of certainty is what does attract most of the people who join certain denominations and cults.

Having kicked around between a number of different churches and/or religions, when a seeker encounters Roman Catholicism and its claims of being the one and only real church, the one Christ himself appointed, AND the one that never has changed (!) . . .

those converts can at last rest safe from the disputes that exist between the other churches which, by and large, look to the same source for support (The Bible) and disagree only on the application.

But with Roman Catholicism, there is certainty--so long as the overriding claim of that church to being uniquely connected to God and approved of by Him is accepted uncritically. Obviously, the Anglican and Lutheran churches do not make such a claim for themselves, nor do the Methodist, Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, Disciples, etc. etc.

 

[Stephen]

No. What we have are people who don't just swallow whole ("with docility") WHATEVER the RCC itself claims for itself - no matter how absurd.

The claim at least of a few fundamentalist Catholics is that the Catholic Church never CHANGES what it teaches. Now, I realize no Catholic here as even attempted to show there's an ounce of truth in that (because that's not how fundamentalistic Catholicism works) but the claim would be profoundly simple to prove is true. All you'd need to do is present an official, authorized Catechism from 33 AD (when it's claimed your denomination began) and show that it's identical, verbatim, word-for-word the same as what is contained in my 800 page 'SECOND EDITION, REVISED, 1994 Catholic Catechism... all 2,865 points of teaching in it. Just show: SAME - SAME. Then the claim would be shown to be true. But you won't do that.... in part because the claim simply isn't true and (more importantly) because in Catholicism, what the Catholic Church says/claims isn't accountable, not subject to the issue of truth.

Of course, obviously, undeniably.... the teachings of the RCC have evolved, changed, developed - the official, authorized Catechism of 33 AD is NOT identical, verbatim, word-for-word the same as the 1994 revised, second edition one. I know that, you know that. All those Councils and Synods were not a pure waste of time because NOTHING changed: it just stated verbatim what it said before - not a letter, not a dot different. All those Papal Bulls, all those declarations, all those countless revisions of the Catechism were not a waste of time because NOTHING changed - not a letter was added, not a dot removed, not anything CHANGED. Your claim is silly on the face of it. OF COURSE it's teachings have changed, evolved, developed! Not that that's necessarily bad, not at all! I solid case can be made that was/is both necessarily and good. But your parroting the claim of the opposite is... well.... you know. I'm SURE you know. You swallow it whole "with docility" because you are Catholic - I totally get it - but you should not be surprised that others realize the obvious.



.

That is just one great big straw man argument.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That is just one great big straw man argument.

It is possible that neither one wants the facts.

 

[Albion]

It is possible that neither one wants the facts.

Not very likely, considering that the Catholics here have contributed almost nothing in the way of specifics that might back up their claims, while the other Christians' posts have addressed the issue by directing the readers' attention to a number of relevant facts, only to have that be brushed off without any response to the information presented.

 

[Josiah]

It is possible that neither one wants the facts.

@MoreCoffee


I WELCOME proof of this claim that the Catholic Church has never changed what it teaches. I'm sure @Albion welcomes it, too!

And it's ever so easy to prove! Just prove that the official Catechism of The Catholic Church in 33 AD (when it claims it began) is verbatim the same, word-for-word identical, all 2,865 points of it, with the 1994 "SECOND EDITION, REVISED" official Catechism of The Catholic Church. Not a letter, not a dot different. Not a letter added or changed or deleted, no change. That would show nothing has changed. Easy!!! But you won't. And you don't. It's not JUST a case that obviously you can't show it to be true, it's more a case of it just doesn't occur to you if it's true, that issue is off your radar.



But here we have yet another example of something very fundamental and central to Catholicism (well, the Catholicism of a few Catholics, anyway). Both you and Stephen so well are showing it, proving it, revealing it, illustrating it. Here's this (absurd, silly, unhistorical, obviously wrong) claim - but there's no thought of whether it's true or not, that doesn't even occur to you, that doesn't even come to mind. There's no attempt to show it's true because that doesn't matter to you, that doesn't even occur to you. What is key to Catholicism (at least the medieval form of it), what is foundational to the epistemology of classic Catholicism, what is sometimes drilled into Catholics from birth, is the claim of the Catholic Church itself alone for it itself alone that it itself alone IS the Authority... and (it claims) that means that whatever it itself says/claims/teaches (at least in doctrine) is just to be swallowed whole ("with docility" is how it puts this) simply because the Catholic Church says/teaches/claims it. You and Stephan are just showing how this works. It's stunning. It's shocking. And a bit scary.

But the Good New here is that your denomination has largely CHANGED this teaching. Praise God! That epistemology - so well ingrained in the Middle Ages - has mostly disappeared, or at least been mitigated. I admit, it's STILL very much present (found clearly in that Second Edition of the Revised 1994 Catechism) but it's been developed, changed, evolved into something different. It's just that there are what some call "fundamentalist" Catholics who still live in the Middle Ages and buy that old, previous teaching, the old epistemology. For the many Christians who know and admire Catholicism today, it's kind of shocking to see this old epistemology shown as you and Stephan are doing, and you can understand why they immediately think of the cults. Now I admit, the issue is NOT EASY! I've discussed (or tried to) this issue of Authority before... and noted that it's difficult and that a balance is needed (a balance VERY difficult to achieve... perhaps never properly) but clearly, you are showing the problem with a very one-sided view that denies any accountability of self alone if self alone insists that self alone has it. The cults perhaps prove the wrongness of your medieval Catholic epistemology. Truth is not upheld by insisting that truth is irrelevant.




IMO, there's another issue at play here, too. It's not uncommon for Catholicism to state things.... POORLY. To state something that ONCE (maybe long ago) was understood exactly as stated. But that CHANGED. But the WORDING has stayed the same. Instead of some humility, some honesty... instead of saying "We ONCE taught that - but that wasn't quite right, NOW we teach this" Instead of that honesty and humility, the Catholic Church sometimes continues to SAY the previous thing while insisting it MEANS something very different. "Up actually means down." "When we say Mary answers prayer we MEAN that she doesn't." That sort of thing. I think 90% of Catholics MEAN that the Catholic Church has never contradicted itself on Doctrine, reversed itself.... never said "Christ is only symbolicly present" then "Christ is fully present, human and divine" That sort of thing. And that's true, that CAN be shown. But that's not remotely related to whether it has CHANGED its teachings. Catholicism plays that game a LOT. It's a sign of its lack of humility, honesty... its NEED to not admit it errs.


Blessings to you, my brother.



.

 

[Stephen]

Not very likely, considering that the Catholics here have contributed almost nothing in the way of specifics that might back up their claims, while the other Christians' posts have addressed the issue by directing the readers' attention to a number of relevant facts, only to have that be brushed off without any response to the information they were presented with.

Looking back though your recent posts I see lots of opinions and claims with only one fact (a quote from Vatican 1)

 

[Stephen]

@MoreCoffee


I WELCOME proof of this claim that the Catholic Church has never changed what it teaches. I'm sure @Albion welcomes it, too!

And it's ever so easy to prove! Just prove that the official Catechism of The Catholic Church in 33 AD (when it claims it began) is verbatim the same, word-for-word identical, all 2,865 points of it, with the 1994 "SECOND EDITION, REVISED" official Catechism of The Catholic Church. Not a letter, not a dot different. Not a letter added or changed or deleted, no change. That would show nothing has changed. Easy!!! But you won't. And you don't. It's not JUST a case that obviously you can't show it to be true, it's more a case of it just doesn't occur to you if it's true, that issue is off your radar.



But here we have yet another example of something very fundamental and central to Catholicism (well, the Catholicism of a few Catholics, anyway). Both you and Stephen so well are showing it, proving it, revealing it, illustrating it. Here's this (absurd, silly, unhistorical, obviously wrong) claim - but there's no thought of whether it's true or not, that doesn't even occur to you, that doesn't even come to mind. There's no attempt to show it's true because that doesn't matter to you, that doesn't even occur to you. What is key to Catholicism (at least the medieval form of it), what is foundational to the epistemology of classic Catholicism, what is sometimes drilled into Catholics from birth, is the claim of the Catholic Church itself alone for it itself alone that it itself alone IS the Authority... and (it claims) that means that whatever it itself says/claims/teaches (at least in doctrine) is just to be swallowed whole ("with docility" is how it puts this) simply because the Catholic Church says/teaches/claims it. You and Stephan are just showing how this works. It's stunning. It's shocking. And a bit scary.

But the Good New here is that your denomination has largely CHANGED this teaching. Praise God! That epistemology - so well ingrained in the Middle Ages - has mostly disappeared, or at least been mitigated. I admit, it's STILL very much present (found clearly in that Second Edition of the Revised 1994 Catechism) but it's been developed, changed, evolved into something different. It's just that there are what some call "fundamentalist" Catholics who still live in the Middle Ages and buy that old, previous teaching, the old epistemology. For the many Christians who know and admire Catholicism today, it's kind of shocking to see this old epistemology shown as you and Stephan are doing, and you can understand why they immediately think of the cults. Now I admit, the issue is NOT EASY! I've discussed (or tried to) this issue of Authority before... and noted that it's difficult and that a balance is needed (a balance VERY difficult to achieve... perhaps never properly) but clearly, you are showing the problem with a very one-sided view that denies any accountability of self alone if self alone insists that self alone has it. The cults perhaps prove the wrongness of your medieval Catholic epistemology. Truth is not upheld by insisting that truth is irrelevant.




IMO, there's another issue at play here, too. It's not uncommon for Catholicism to state things.... POORLY. To state something that ONCE (maybe long ago) was understood exactly as stated. But that CHANGED. But the WORDING has stayed the same. Instead of some humility, some honesty... instead of saying "We ONCE taught that - but that wasn't quite right, NOW we teach this" Instead of that honesty and humility, the Catholic Church sometimes continues to SAY the previous thing while insisting it MEANS something very different. "Up actually means down." "When we say Mary answers prayer we MEAN that she doesn't." That sort of thing. I think 90% of Catholics MEAN that the Catholic Church has never contradicted itself on Doctrine, reversed itself.... never said "Christ is only symbolicly present" then "Christ is fully present, human and divine" That sort of thing. And that's true, that CAN be shown. But that's not remotely related to whether it has CHANGED its teachings. Catholicism plays that game a LOT. It's a sign of its lack of humility, honesty... its NEED to not admit it errs.


Blessings to you, my brother.



.

More straw men, obfuscations and falsehoods.

BTW my name is Stephen not stephan and for the umpteenth time the topic is DOCTRINE not TEACHING.

And still not a single example of defined doctrine being changed.

 

[Josiah]

And still not a single example of defined doctrine being changed.

... and still not even an attempt, a thought from you of showing your claim is true. There never will be, either.



@Stephen I WELCOME you showing your claim is true. I welcome you proving that the Catholic Church has never changed what it teaches (as doctrine or as anything). And it's ever so easy for you to prove! All you need to do is show that the official Catechism of The Catholic Church in 33 AD (when it claims it began) is verbatim the same, word-for-word identical, all 2,865 points of it, with the 1994 "SECOND EDITION, REVISED" official Catechism of The Catholic Church. Not a letter, not a dot different. Not a letter added or changed or deleted, no change. That would show nothing has changed. Easy!!! But you won't do it. This is not JUST a case that obviously you can't show it to be true, it's more a case of it just doesn't occur to you if it's true.


And a little elementary refresher in apologetics: It is the responsibility of the claimant to show the claim is true, it is NOT the responsibility of others to show it's false. You know that; we all do.



But here you show something very fundamental and central to Catholicism (well, the Catholicism of a few Catholics, anyway). Here's this (absurd, silly, unhistorical, obviously wrong) claim - but there's no thought of whether it's true or not, that doesn't even occur to you, that doesn't even come to mind. There's no attempt to show it's true because that doesn't matter to you, that doesn't even occur to you. What is key to Catholicism (at least the medieval form of it), what is foundational to the epistemology of classic Catholicism, what is sometimes drilled into Catholics from birth, is the claim of the Catholic Church itself alone for it itself alone that it itself alone IS the Authority... and (it claims) that means that whatever it itself says/claims/teaches (at least in doctrine) is just to be swallowed whole ("with docility" is how it puts this) simply because the Catholic Church says/teaches/claims it. You and are just showing how this works. It's stunning. It's shocking. And a bit scary.

But the Good New here is that your denomination has largely CHANGED this teaching. Praise God! That epistemology - so well ingrained in the Middle Ages - has mostly disappeared, or at least been mitigated. I admit, it's STILL very much present (found clearly in that Second Edition of the Revised 1994 Catechism) but it's been developed, changed, evolved into something different. It's just that there are what some call "fundamentalist" Catholics who still live in the Middle Ages and buy that old, previous teaching, the old epistemology. For the many Christians who know and admire Catholicism today, it's kind of shocking to see this old epistemology shown as you and Stephan are doing, and you can understand why they immediately think of the cults. Now I admit, the issue is NOT EASY! I've discussed (or tried to) this issue of Authority before... and noted that it's difficult and that a balance is needed (a balance VERY difficult to achieve... perhaps never properly) but clearly, you are showing the problem with a very one-sided view that denies any accountability of self alone if self alone insists that self alone has it. The cults perhaps prove the wrongness of your medieval Catholic epistemology. Truth is not upheld by insisting that truth is irrelevant.


IMO, there's another issue at play here, too. It's not uncommon for Catholicism to state things.... POORLY. To state something that ONCE (maybe long ago) was understood exactly as stated. But that CHANGED. But the WORDING has stayed the same. Instead of some humility, some honesty... instead of saying "We ONCE taught that - but that wasn't quite right, NOW we teach this" Instead of that honesty and humility, the Catholic Church sometimes continues to SAY the previous thing while insisting it MEANS something very different. "Up actually means down." "When we say Mary answers prayer we MEAN that she doesn't." That sort of thing. I think 90% of Catholics MEAN that the Catholic Church has never contradicted itself on Doctrine, reversed itself.... never said "Christ is only symbolicly present" then "Christ is fully present, human and divine" That sort of thing. And that's true, that CAN be shown. But that's not remotely related to whether it has CHANGED its teachings. Catholicism plays that game a LOT. It's a sign of its lack of humility, honesty... its NEED to not admit it errs.




.