The development of Doctrine

[Stephen]

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.



.

In that case I suggest you practice what you preach.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Cardinal Gibbons wrote:

But did not the Vatican Council in promulgating the definition of Papal Infallibility in 1870, create a new doctrine of revelation? And did not the Church thereby forfeit her glorious distinction of being always unchangeable in her teaching?​

​

The Council did not create a new creed, but rather confirmed the old one. It formulated into an article of faith a truth which in every age had been accepted by the Catholic world because it had been implicitly contained in the deposit of revelation.​

​

I may illustrate this point by referring again to our Supreme Court. When the Chief Justice, with his colleagues, decides a constitutional question, his decision, though presented in a new shape, cannot be called a new doctrine, because it is based on the letter and spirit of the Constitution.​

​

In like manner, when the Church issues a new dogma of faith, that decree is nothing more than a new form of expressing an old doctrine, because the decision must be drawn from the revealed Word of God.​

 

[Josiah]

Cardinal Gibbons wrote:

But did not the Vatican Council in promulgating the definition of Papal Infallibility in 1870, create a new doctrine of revelation? And did not the Church thereby forfeit her glorious distinction of being always unchangeable in her teaching?​

​

The Council did not create a new creed, but rather confirmed the old one. It formulated into an article of faith a truth which in every age had been accepted by the Catholic world because it had been implicitly contained in the deposit of revelation.​

​

I may illustrate this point by referring again to our Supreme Court. When the Chief Justice, with his colleagues, decides a constitutional question, his decision, though presented in a new shape, cannot be called a new doctrine, because it is based on the letter and spirit of the Constitution.​

​

In like manner, when the Church issues a new of faith, that decree is nothing more than a new form of expressing an old doctrine, because the decision must be drawn from the revealed Word of God.​

His (odd) illustration of SCOTUS affirms that there is CHANGE. If SCOTUS takes up a case, it NEVER - NEVER - says nothing as a result. It says something... often in a that can be hundreds of pages long, and lately there be a minority report also that goes into the record. It's never left the same.... If that were the case, none of the justices would say or do anything.

Friend, obvious, undeniably, if anything is added, subtracted or modified in ANY way then, by definition, it's been CHANGED. You know that, I know that. Your whole point of the opening post here was to DOCUMENT many, many key central important CHANGES that were made - some by the ecumenical church, some by the Western, Latin Church (yours), some by the Eastern, Orthodox, Greek Church. But you went to some length to PROVE changes made.


.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, the Cardinal you quote confirms that the Catholic Church CHANGES things. Indeed, it happens "in every age."

One is pleased that one is not bound by your interpretations.

 

[Josiah]

@MoreCoffee

"If anything is added, subtracted or modified in any way then by definition, it's been CHANGED. You know that, I know that. Your whole point of the opening post here was to DOCUMENT many, many key central important CHANGES that were made - some by the ecumenical church, some by the Western, Latin Church (yours), some by the Eastern, Orthodox, Greek Church. But you went to some length to PROVE changes made in your opening posts."

I have just CHANGED what I posted in # 83. Obviously, undeniably. Some things ADDED (changed!) and some things DELETED (changed!).



But again, your whole point in the opening posts in this thread was to powerfully prove that CHANGES made in the first few centuries of Christianity. CHANGES. You listed them.

We have an example here (there are COUNTLESS similar examples in Catholicism) where what is claimed (and once believed) is no longer what is MEANT... The RCC at times uses the same wording but means it in some weird, strange, way that must be carefully and oddly explained because it's not how the language is usually meant. The RCC cannot admit it has changed it's mind (because it was wrong) so it SAYS the same thing but MEANS something very, very different by it.

IMO, what the RCC likely MEANS is that it has never contradicted itself in formal, official, de fide DOCTRINE. There's not been a case, for example, of it officially declaring, as de fide dogma, that Jesus is only symbolically present in the Eucharist and then later, as official de fide dogma, that He is fully present in the Eucharist. Nope, THAT hasn't happen. But then the same can be said of just about every other denomination, too. Certainly mine. What IS the case in the RCC is not remarkable, it's very typical - the same can be said of nearly every church (some a lot more than yours!!!!!). In my denomination, not a single letter, not a single punctuation mark of the official formal dogma of my church has ever been changed in its entire history since its founding, not one letter has been added, not one dot moved. No Council has modified, changed, added or changed even one letter since its founding... you PROVED that's NOT the case with your denomination. IMO, that's what the RCC MEANS but of course that's not what it SAYS. This is yet another, still another, case where the RCC says something that it doesn't mean.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If anything is added, subtracted or modified in any way then by definition, it's been CHANGED.

Nonsense

For example, the dogma of the immaculate conception is still exactly as it was when first committed to writing but explanation of the dogma and catechesis about it varies from nation to nation and from language to language. Thus, there is an abundance of modification but no change whatever. The proposition you put forward is unsophisticated near-fundamentalist literalism about a word "changed" that has a very wide scope of meaning. So long as your arguments depend on this kind of unsophisticated reasoning, they will be insufficient for serious consideration.

 

[Josiah]

there is an abundance of modification

@MoreCoffee


....and thus by definition, changes. Obviously, undeniably.


PART of the issue as you so well prove is that clearly your denomination seems to lack the ability (willingless?) to be precise in what it means, sloppy is putting the very best construction possible on it. But I've already shared it seems FAR more likely that this is much more than purposely being sloppy and imprecise, I find it quite intentional...

You've already proven - very well - that obviously your denomination changes its teachings, indeed your opening posts here do that well, they prove it. You are simply trying to suggest that "game" of which your denomination is well known. Unfortunate, to say the least.


I've already noted that there is a sense in which you can argue that your denomination has not officially reversed itself on official, authorized, de fide Dogma. I would agree with THAT, but of course that's not what is claimed and that's true for most denominations - most of them far more so than yours. BUT that's not at all the same as not CHANGING things. You know that, we all do. And so clearly you are just playing a silly Catholic game, an absurd game to make it SEEM that your denomination is somehow "special" (read: infallible, unaccountable, all ruling, all powerful, lording it on all) when in reality, it's no better (and often worse) in this regard than most denominations.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

@MoreCoffee


....and thus by definition, changes. Obviously, undeniably.

I can't take these posts seriously. It's just repeating the weak semi-fundamentalist argument made before, without any attempt to deal with the difference between Dogmatic Statement and catechetical explanations.

Have at it, @Josiah, see who you can convince by these remarkably bad arguments.

 

[Stephen]

I can't take these posts seriously. It's just repeating the weak semi-fundamentalist argument made before, without any attempt to deal with the difference between Dogmatic Statement and catechetical explanations.

Have at it, @Josiah, see who you can convince by these remarkably bad arguments.

I agree. Sometimes a doctrine requires more explanation to help it being more fully understood. But that does not change the doctrine.

Take your example of the Immaculate Conception.
In the Compendium to the Catechism (CCCC) there is one paragraph (96) on this. But it refers to the full Catechism (CCC) for a fuller explanation (paras 487-492). That doesn't mean the doctrines changes, just that the full Catechism gives a deeper understanding.

 

[BruceLeiter]

THE REFORM COUNCILS — TRENT, VATICAN I, VATICAN II​

#19 Trent (1545-63)
Rejected the Protestant Reformation, affirmed Church teachings, implemented reforms
Lasting 18 years, due to wars and plagues, the Council of Trent was called in reaction to the 16th-century Protestant Reformation. This was a crisis; it was a schism in Christianity that has never healed. The council confirmed Catholic beliefs in view of the heretical teachings of the excommunicated Martin Luther and implemented long overdue internal reforms. For 200 years, the Church had been aware of needed reforms but for various reasons failed to act in a definitive way. Many of the council reforms were directed at the clergy — their recruitment, training, lifestyle and obligation to remain celibate. Bishops were limited to control of one diocese and had to reside therein. The preparation of a catechism was directed. In response to the Protestants, the council affirmed and solidified the sacred teachings of the Church including the Mass, purgatory, justification, the Seven Sacraments, that Divine Revelation comes from both Scripture and Tradition, that Church teachings on the Bible are infallible and that the books in the Bible are inspired by God. The practice of indulgences was continued but selling of indulgences condemned. While Pope Paul III convoked the council, four other popes would be elected during the council. As few as 30 and as many as 200-plus bishops attended the council’s 25 sessions.

“Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops … were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace, and also the councils assembled together, in which more profound issues were settled in common, the opinion of the many having been prudently considered, both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order.” — ‘Lumen Gentium,‘ Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council (1964, No. 22)

#20 Vatican I (1869-70)
Papal Infallibility
Summoned by Blessed Pius IX, the council of 800 bishops provided the pope with infallibility, declaring, “It is divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church.” In addition to establishing papal infallibility, the bishops condemned liberalism, pantheism, materialism and issued a constitution on faith and revelation.
#21 Vatican II (1962-65)
Promoted Christian unity, addressed the role of the Church in the 20th century
This was generated to be a reforming council. Convoked by Pope St. John XXIII, with over 2,800 attendees, this was the largest ever ecumenical council. The liturgy was revised, the role of the laity was expanded, ecumenism was urged and Catholics were challenged to increased witnessing of the Faith. There was belief that needed fresh air would begin blowing in the Church. As time moves the Church further and further away from Vatican II, initial confusion and uncertainty have stabilized, and fewer and fewer of the faithful have experienced Catholicism before the most recent of the 21 ecumenical councils.

You have an interesting summary. It is my opinion that the Catholic Church's approach went wrong when they established a separate tradition apart from the limits of the Bible's teachings and history and that much of this summary admits to that fact. They would do much better to stick within the Scriptures by renouncing the teachings about purgatory, Mary, and papal infallibility. Only the Bible is infallible.