Uncomfortable Catholic Doctrines

[KnightofChrist]

And that would be a misinterpretation of Vatican II. Vatican II can not only be interpreted in such a way that Tradition is not violated or contradicted, that is exactly how it is to be interpreted.

 

This would be part of that "uncomfortable' truth that, as more documents produce a more thorough understanding of doctrine over time, that progression does not invalidate past doctrine, but simply build upon that very doctrine. It is the hermeneutic of continuity that we hear about so often.

 

The Pope, or future Pope needs to make the correct interpretation clear and undeniable. This needs to happen to clear up the confusion. Since Vatican II there have been different groups interpreting it different ways, most groups can be put into two groups traditional and liberal. Both groups can seem to have equal force behind their interpretations, and since they both contradict one is false. I know which one is false, you know which one is false, but there are many who are confused or believe the false interpretation is true. The Pope needs to make clear which one is the correct one.

Edited April 5, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

Is the following statement heretical:

 

"May Saint John Baptist protect Islam"

 

I will not comment on whether or not Pope John Paul II held heretical beliefs. But Islam while it has elements of truth it is false over all. Saint John the Baptist does not protect false religions.

[Fidei Defensor]

I think the blanket statement that "we are really stupid" applies when it comes to evolution of doctrine — i.e. we don't understand everything and are always getting a better grasp on stuff.

[Catholictothecore]

You know what's an uncomfortable truth? 

 

Doctrine evolves. 

 

It evolves, but rarely change. While it's true, for example, that it took the church until 1858 to define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the fact is, that cult, or "theory" had existed for centuries. The Church will never suddenly "evolve" into the doctrine that women are supposed to be priest, or that sacramental union can exist between two men or two women.Just saying.  

[KnightofChrist]

It evolves, but rarely change. While it's true, for example, that it took the church until 1858 to define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the fact is, that cult, or "theory" had existed for centuries. The Church will never suddenly "evolve" into the doctrine that women are supposed to be priest, or that sacramental union can exist between two men or two women.Just saying.  

 

The meaning of Doctrine never changes and does not evolve. It may grow like Christ grew from a child to an adult but it doesn't evolve like a species evolving into another species. When something evolves it changes into something else, while it may be similar it is not the same.

[Catholictothecore]

The meaning of Doctrine never changes and does not evolve. It may grow like Christ grew from a child to an adult but it doesn't evolve like a species evolving into another species. When something evolves it changes into something else, while it may be similar it is not the same.

 

It's what I was trying to get at. There is a difference between growth and evolution. To say the Church evolves is incorrect. But it definitely has grown. 

[Basilisa Marie]

It evolves, but rarely change. While it's true, for example, that it took the church until 1858 to define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the fact is, that cult, or "theory" had existed for centuries. The Church will never suddenly "evolve" into the doctrine that women are supposed to be priest, or that sacramental union can exist between two men or two women.Just saying.  

 

Well yeah, because that poses a direct contradiction to other truths, like a sacramental marriage occurs between a man and a woman.  Even if someone were to side with the theologians who argue that male priesthood is a matter of discipline and not doctrine, I think it's incredibly telling that the Church has said that it has no authority to change it - it didn't give some long beautiful theological treatise about masculinity and the priesthood, it just said it lacked authority to change it.  So really that makes the argument of whether it's doctrine or discipline a complete moot point, because no matter what it is, the Church can't change it.  Sure, the idea of the Immaculate Conception had existed for years, but that was partly because some people thought that Jesus got his human parts from Mary and so Mary had to be perfect in order for Jesus to be perfect.  Now we understand that's not really the case, but I think what makes something like the Immaculate Conception such a good doctrine is that it is purely an article of faith, much like the hypostatic union or the Eucharist, and we see that it doesn't contradict anything else in the tradition.  You can't really come to know it by reason alone. 

 

I think you're definitely right to make the distinction between change and evolve.  Change has the connotation of some definitive break, while "evolve" implies a kind of change that grows instead of breaks.  I think some people run into problems when they put too much stuff in the "unchanging doctrine" category, because you start running into contradictions and things fall apart.  But I also think that if we want to keep the "unchanging/unevolved doctrine" category small, we have to also recognize the important of obedience to our bishops to balance that out.  Like, if the pope interprets a doctrine a certain way, I have to obey him because he's the pope during the time in which I live, and I trust the Holy Spirit is guiding our gradual understanding of what the Truth means.  

UGh sorry for the long post - I was talking about the meaning of doctrine with a friend of mine, and he literally thought I was going to hell because I told him I didn't think the loss of the papal states was a bad thing. He was nice enough to be genuinely concerned for me. :)  But I think it's a delicate balance between affirming the truth of the faith and not getting caught up in a hundred contradictions. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Huh. I'm clearly defining evolve differently.  "Grow" is probably a better word. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Doctrine, of course, cannot change. What was true for Pius remained true for Paul. What was true for Leo was true for John Paul and Francis. It is our responsibility as Catholic laypeople to faithfully receive what the Church has handed down to us for all times and places, and to guard ourselves against error and deformation.

[Basilisa Marie]

Doctrine, of course, cannot change. What was true for Pius remained true for Paul. What was true for Leo was true for John Paul and Francis. It is our responsibility as Catholic laypeople to faithfully receive what the Church has handed down to us for all times and places, and to guard ourselves against error and deformation.

 

Okay sure, but what happens when there are obvious contradictions in what popes and other bishops say, using their position of authority?  Don't we have to take into account that our understanding of the Truth grows and the way we express our understanding of the Truth changes?

Edited April 5, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[Nihil Obstat]

Okay sure, but what happens when there are obvious contradictions in what popes and other bishops say, using their position of authority?  Don't we have to take into account that our understanding of the Truth grows and the way we express our understanding of the Truth changes?

I think it means that we do not understand the issue well enough.

 

If at one point it was forbidden to suggest that the Papal States need not exist (and I am not familiar with this), and now today it is not, then it does not mean that once it was true and now it is not. It means that it was never true that 'belief in' the Papal States, for lack of a better term, was a necessary condition for being a faithful Catholic.

[Basilisa Marie]

I think it means that we do not understand the issue well enough.

 

If at one point it was forbidden to suggest that the Papal States need not exist (and I am not familiar with this), and now today it is not, then it does not mean that once it was true and now it is not. It means that it was never true that 'belief in' the Papal States, for lack of a better term, was a necessary condition for being a faithful Catholic.

 

Syllabus of Errors.  :) 

[Nihil Obstat]

Syllabus of Errors. :)

The Papal States thing?
I would have to assume that it was a prudential judgement type thing. Much like some economic statements today.

[Basilisa Marie]

The Papal States thing?
I would have to assume that it was a prudential judgement type thing. Much like some economic statements today.

 

Yup.  And that's what I would say, too - prudential judgment. I know a lot of people get their knickers in a knot over things like this (aka my adorable friend who is concerned for the state of my soul), so it seems to me that it's important to explain that there are deeper truths behind what is being said in situations like this, that those truths don't change, even if a particular "interpretation" or way of applying the truth is in vogue.  And in the meantime, it's important to obey our bishops when they're applying the in-vogue methods. 

 

Economic statements - are you talking about solidarity and subsidiarity? or...? 

[Nihil Obstat]

Yup. And that's what I would say, too - prudential judgment. I know a lot of people get their knickers in a knot over things like this (aka my adorable friend who is concerned for the state of my soul), so it seems to me that it's important to explain that there are deeper truths behind what is being said in situations like this, that those truths don't change, even if a particular "interpretation" or way of applying the truth is in vogue. And in the meantime, it's important to obey our bishops when they're applying the in-vogue methods.

Economic statements - are you talking about solidarity and subsidiarity? or...?

Not really referring to anything specific. Although Turkson's paper would be an example.