The above helps in the understanding of development of doctrine. "This is another example showing the importance of recognizing implicit historical and contextual qualifications for rightly interpreting Church documents, such that one does not mistakenly treat the not saying of x as the saying of ~x, or treat the saying of x [within an implicit qualified context] as though it were x-and-absolutely-and-unqualifiedly-x."
[found this in comment 69 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/signs-of-predestination-a-catholic-discusses-election/
from the above link comment 97
I don’t know where you got the idea that the Catholic Church “denies doctrinal development” (‘DD’ for short). For instance, Vatican II says, in a document freely accessible online (references omitted, emphasis added):
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
And just before he became pope, Ratzinger said (emphasis added):
When I continued my studies in Munich in 1947, I found a well read and enthusiastic follower of Newman in the Fundamental Theologian, Gottlieb Söhngen, who was my true teacher in theology. He opened up the Grammar of Assent to us and in doing so, the special manner and form of certainty in religious knowledge. Even deeper for me was the contribution which Heinrich Fries published in connection with the Jubilee of Chalcedon. Here I found access to Newman’s teaching on the development of doctrine, which I regard along with his doctrine on conscience as his decisive contribution to the renewal of theology. With this he had placed the key in our hand to build historical thought into theology, or much more, he taught us to think historically in theology and so to recognize the identity of faith in all developments.
What the Pope and the Church would and do deny is the claim that DD adds to the deposit of faith, which is how you seem to conceive it. Rather, DD is believed to express only a deeper understanding of the faith “given once for all to the holy ones.”
You seem to think that DD is some sort of intellectual sleight-of-hand masking an internal contradiction. But your argument to that effect is invalid. For one thing, your criticism of DD begs the question by assuming that DD constitutes addition to the deposit, which the Church denies, and would only be true if DD could be justified only when it’s deduction from documentary sources considered normative, which is also being denied. In other words, you’re just assuming the very critique of DD that Ratzinger’s early teachers favored, but which he came to reject, for reasons he gives. For another, you claim:
Indeed the earliest evidence for this belief is found in apocryphal Christian writings which the Catholic Church said early on were not to be considered as part of the faith. Indeed some of these writings were actually condemned by some of the early popes, interestingly enough.
But that argument masks a fallacy. From the fact that early Church authorities denied that a given text T is a reliable record of the faith, it does not follow that every statement made in T was believed to be false. For instance, among the pre-Nicene documentary sources, the perpetual virginity of Mary is asserted only in the Protoevangelium of James, which the Church authorities decided to exclude from the canon on the ground that its apostolic authorship was dubious at best. Yet the perpetual virginity of Mary was being unreservedly affirmed by both the Eastern and Western churches well before the fifth century. So, just because a given belief appears in a text that was not considered reliable overall, it does not follow that everything in it was considered false. The same goes, of course, for the “Dormition” or Assumption of Mary.
Your argument would be strengthened if you could show that the early Church deemed as legitimate doctrinal developments only those statements which are either explicitly made in sources she considered normative or are logically deducible therefrom. But the evidence does not permit such a move. E.g., there is ample historical evidence that the cult of the martyrs and saints, understood as seeking the intercession of holy Christians who had died and gone to their reward, was well-established by the mid-2nd century and accepted as legitimate. Yet it is not possible to deduce the legitimacy of that practice from the biblical canon or other written sources considered normative at the time.
So of course I’d say that the four Marian dogmas are doctrinal developments, as the Church herself understands DD. By the criteria used in the Church for as far back as we do have records, they are also legitimate doctrinal developments. One can deny that only by rejecting the idea that a visible Church, continuous with that of the Apostles by apostolic succession, inherits their teaching authority. Which of course is what you do. But you have provided no argument that you should, or even may.
also here from comment 1 http://oldlife.org/2013/08/when-logic-is-delusional/
Maybe someone schooled in upper level logic can reconcile development of doctrine (A) with a condemnation of development of doctrine (not A).
Sure. The argument you are making is equivocating on the term “development of doctrine.” The type of DOD condemned is not the type of DOD affirmed. The former does not require any preservation of the truth handed down; the latter does, however required complete fidelity to the truth handed down, while explicating that truth more clearly and with deeper understanding.
There is a good article on this which gives quotes from 400's AD on this subject. " St. Vincent is a strong advocate of the indefectibility of the Church, and of the importance of interpreting Scripture under the authority of the Church and her universal tradition. " It goes into some of the development --
In the comment section comment 123 is as follows:
But how can you justify the truth of “development of doctrine” when the decisions that arise from contemporary “development” yield conclusions that would not have been known by the original Apostles?
The problem here is the assumption you are bringing to the question, namely, the assumption that no development can be authentic unless that development as such was known by the Apostles. You’re imposing your own personal criterion for what is necessary for authentic development of doctrine, and that simply begs the question, i.e. presupposes what is in question.
If the mission of the episcopate is to “guard” what she has been give, I find it difficult (not unbelievable) to see how it is coherent for this to be compatible with a theory of “development of doctrine” which has the right to explain new expressions of ancient truth in ways that would have never been known prior to.
That’s a statement about yourself (i.e. “I find it difficult …”), not an objection to the Catholic understanding of development of doctrine. In the future, when attempting to show an incoherence, I recommend not saying you find it difficult to see the coherence of x and y; instead show the incompatibility of x and y. That way, you won’t think you’ve made an objection when you actually have not. And by taking to yourself the task of constructing the argument for your objection, you’ll be much more likely to discover for yourself when you don’t actually have an argument (i.e. in this case, that there is no incoherence). Otherwise, rather than present a non-objection as if it as objection, (only to be shown that it is not an objection at all), instead, change your stance, and ask a question. You can’t truly learn and be receptive about x when you’re in the critical stance toward x.
It actually indicates that the Apostles themselves would wait for supernatural confirmation from God before coming out with a declaration of something not known to be revealed by God prior to.
Development of doctrine is not new revelation, so the example does not entail a necessary condition for development of doctrine.
This would be contrasted with the way in which the Marian dogmas were declared, out of the will of man.
This is a question-begging mere assertion. I could assert just the opposite. That would get us nowhere. If you are a Catholic, then you believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in the development of doctrine, and in her definition of dogmas, including the Marian dogmas. Otherwise, you’re back to ecclesial deism, and thinking that you know better than the Magisterium.
So the “normal-mode” was to stick strictly to what has been clearly revealed by God, and to not “progress” from this unless there is supernatural allowance.
Again, you’re treating a condition for new revelation as if it must be a condition for development of doctrine. That conclusion does not follow.
Another indication in the early Fathers was their insistence of the ancient origin of the trinity and the Scriptures. Many modern day Catholic apologists will claim that the trinity and scripture and examples of doctrine which was not “clearly expressed” until the 4th or 5th century. This is just simply false. The Fathers who defended the trinity were not claiming that God had revealed anything new to the Church, or that something new has come by way of organic development. They were claiming that the truth of the Trinity was ancient, and was taught from the Scriptures, which themselves were handed to the Church from the Apostles and the Apostolic men. So quite to the contrary, these Fathers were making dogma what they “already knew”.
I’m one of those persons who claims that the doctrine of the Trinity was not clearly expressed until the third and fourth centuries; see comment #147 in the Matthew Barrett thread. You’re treating development of doctrine as if it is new revelation. It is not. It is the making explicit of what is implicit in the already-received revelation, as St. Vincent explains above. It is not merely logical deduction from given propositions, because the deposit of faith isn’t merely propositions; it is the incarnation of God Himself, alive and present with us in the life, teaching, and practice of the Church. The Marian dogmas were developed in the same organic (making explicit what is implicit) way the dogmas of the Trinity, the deity of the Holy Spirit, and the two-natures of Christ were developed, just over a longer period of time. It is highly unlikely that the Apostles taught explicitly that Christ is “homoousious” with the Father; or that Christ had two wills. This was already present as implicit in the apostolic deposit, but not yet made explicit.
No comments:
Post a Comment