Uncomfortable Catholic Doctrines

[Socrates]

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. 

 

"Evolve" usually implies changing over time from one thing into something different.

Doctrines don't "evolve" in that sense, though the Church's understanding of the meaning and implications of a doctrine can deepen and "grow" over time, as you note.

 

I believe "development of doctrine" is the term usually used.

 

However, the OP's cut-and-paste really has nothing to do with the development of doctrine.  The quote from John Paul II was a (imo, ill-conceived) line from a prayer he said at one time in Wadi Al-Kharrar, and was not a doctrinal statement of the Church. 

[Socrates]

Given that it is not a doctrinal statement, it seems irrelevant to make such a judgment in this topic.

Bingo.

 

 

Islam can go to hell.

[morostheos]

Here is a lovely Catholic Answers tract on the development of doctrine/dogma for any who are interested: 

Can Dogma Develop?

 

:)

 

I think the whole "no salvation outside the Church" is a doctrine that has definitely developed over time. It has never changed, but how we understand it certainly has. For example, we no longer worry extensively about all the poor pagan babies that died before baptism...

[Nihil Obstat]

Here is a lovely Catholic Answers tract on the development of doctrine/dogma for any who are interested: 

Can Dogma Develop?

 

:)

 

I think the whole "no salvation outside the Church" is a doctrine that has definitely developed over time. It has never changed, but how we understand it certainly has. For example, we no longer worry extensively about all the poor pagan babies that died before baptism...

Even Leonard Feeney was, as I understand it, never required to recant his very strict interpretation of EENS. Although I do not agree with his interpretation.

[HisChildForever]

You know what's an uncomfortable truth? 

 

Doctrine evolves. 

 

According to these quotes, I'm envisioning a Heaven full of tumbleweeds...

[Nihil Obstat]

According to these quotes, I'm envisioning a Heaven full of tumbleweeds...

Unlikely. Tumbleweed comes from the desert, and everybody knows that the desert is used as an allegory for spiritual desolation and implies a need for redemption and salvation. You would be more likely to encounter tumbleweed in hell, except for the fact that it is flammable, so you would encounter ashes instead.

[HisChildForever]

Unlikely. Tumbleweed comes from the desert, and everybody knows that the desert is used as an allegory for spiritual desolation and implies a need for redemption and salvation. You would be more likely to encounter tumbleweed in hell, except for the fact that it is flammable, so you would encounter ashes instead.

 

I was totally talking about the kind of tumbleweed made out of clouds. Psshh.

[Nihil Obstat]

I was totally talking about the kind of tumbleweed made out of clouds. Psshh.

I will accept your defense. This time.

 

[HisChildForever]

LOL.

[mortify]

Given that it is not a doctrinal statement, it seems irrelevant to make such a judgment in this topic.

 

I disagree with you, the law of prayer is the law of belief and if one prays that St John the Baptist protect Islam, then there is plenty of doctrine underlying it. I think we can all agree, albeit uncomfortably, that such a statement is at least suspect of heresy.

[mortify]

No worries my friends, I have started on new topic on this issue on the debate thread