Doctrinal Development Speculation

[dairygirl4u2c]

I would like to know if anyone here knows how much Catholics are allowed to speculate on the development of doctrine.

Another issue I've asked but never got a clear answer on is this. If a Catholic thinks doctrine will develop further and acts accordingly is he in sin according to the Catholic Church? (I realize that she must always follow her conscience.. but I mean is she strictly prohibited by doing this?)

I would guess RCs can speculate all they want, but not sure about acting on it.

Two examples to shed light. If a Catholic worshiped her Eucharist back in the early church people might have thought that was evil. But since worshipping Jesus is a natural development to eating him, it later became acceptable. But what about that girl or guy that worhipped early?

Or the guy that thought that "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" meant that others can be saved because they are really part of the Catholic Church and don't realize it, but everyoe else thought he was evil for allowing for that possibility.

Can people read the texts of encyclicals or whatever exactly is infallibe and see where ambiguities exist that would allow for development? (btw, I still don't know where you're suppose to look to find the infallibe documents) There's actually two issues in this question, one is whether or not the person is looking to take things out of context, ie out of the intent of the writer, and two is looking for natural unclearnesses. (I think the first one is what happens much.. ie contradicting the true intent of previous popes)

Probably an explanation of what is and is not legitimate doctrinal development is also in order.

Edited July 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

The Catholic Church is not a pile of documents, it is a living faith. You wanna know what she teaches you ask a priest or an orthodox Catholic friend. There is criteria for whether a doctrine is infallible or not, but if you're a faithful Catholic you put yourself in the care of Holy Mother Church and simply allow her to teach you. Squabbles about which things are infallible and which things are are useless for people of humble minds and hearts.

Early Christians worshipped the Eucharist.

The Church will never contradict herself. Therefore, if you follow what the Church teaches (which is very easy to find out what it teaches, consult an orthodox Catholic friend, or the Catechism... no need to obsess over the status of it's infallibility) you cannot err. A developement would build upon that doctrine, which means you simply didn't fully comprehend the doctrine. You pose as an example Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus. A majority of Catholics back then simply said all people that are not in visible communion with the Church are going to hell. However, you could have held that view or held the view that a visible connection is not always fully necessary by God's mercy, either way would not have been against Church teaching. So long as you don't believe something contrary to Church teaching, you're fine.

You'd have to give a modern example. One cannot think some sort of developement will come to allow for homosexuality, because that is contrary to Church teaching and could never be considered a developement of doctrine but rather a reversal of doctrine, which would disprove the Religion. So, give an example.

Anyway, developement of doctrine is very simple. The subject is more fully explained. There is no such thing as the position on the subject being completely reversed, that is a Theological impossibility from a Catholic perspective.

Edited July 22, 2004 by Aloysius

[dairygirl4u2c]

I thought I read that in the early day they didn't always worship it. It was on an apologetics board to explain how development occurs.

We can squibble over whether or not past church documents have been taken out of context of the intent. But I suppose you answered the question. You can be a minority to the extreme that believes something, but as long as it doesn't contradict it's okay. Right? Please answer this question.

Also, I better give an example or people won't understand me. This might be a bad example but still answer that question. One thinks kneeling before the Eucharist is necessary, one does not. A pope later says it is necessary.

It must be okay that the kneeler thinks it's necessary and even okay if he acts on it.

Edited July 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[mmmerf]

Speculation is fine - think all you want. I'm speculating right now that the next parish function at St. Paul's will have egg salad finger sandwiches. And I'm pretty confident of that.

But you can't act on that speculation. People thought for sure the church was going to allow artifical birth control. But Humanae Vitae made the church's position clear. However thousands of Catholics in the meantime, even well meaning priests and theologians, had taken speculation and acted upon it, causing untold scandal worldwide and making the pope's teaching that much harder to accept and understand. Speculate, but never act contrary to what Holy Mother Church presently teaches.

Put another way, a bridge that's not yet been built might be a good idea, but it won't bear your weight or keep you from drowning if you try to cross it.

So listen to the Pontifex Maximus! (Master Bridge-builder, aka The Pope!)










See how I did that? Wrapped the whole analogy back into the papacy like that? Come on... you have to admit, that's some nice work.

:thumb:

Dave

[Aloysius]

please give me an example.

I'll come up with an example. A Catholic may speculate that the Just War Doctrine needs to be expanded to include pre-emptive strikes. This would not contradict Catholic Teaching, and could be a possible developement of doctrine in the future. However, if one speculates that the Just War Doctrine should be expanded, they should not hold to that speculation with the same conviction as if it were a defined doctrine of the faith.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 22 2004, 03:18 PM'] I thought I read that in the early day they didn't always worship it. It was on an apologetics board to explain how development occurs.

We can squibble over whether or not past church documents have been taken out of context of the intent. But  I suppose you answered the question. You can be a minority to the extreme that believes something, but as long as it doesn't contradict it's okay. Right? [/quote]
dairygirl,

Hey! long time no see! I hope you've been doing well.

My understanding is that the practice of formal Eucharistic adoration, or the ways in which the Eucharist has been venerated and worshipped has developed, but from the beginning Christians knew that Christ was God and that the Eucharist is Christ's substantial presence among us.

A lack of formal Eucharistic Adoration doesn't mean that they didn't believe in the Real Presence because the Eastern Orthodox never developed the practice of Eucharistic adoration, but they believe that the God-man is present in the Eucharistic Mystery.

God bless you my friend.

Peace.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]However thousands of Catholics in the meantime, even well meaning priests and theologians, had taken speculation and acted upon it, causing untold scandal worldwide and making the pope's teaching that much harder to accept and understand. Speculate, but never act contrary to what Holy Mother Church presently teaches[/quote].

In this case, contraception must have been not clearly banned in order to be analogous to my question. So I don't see how you made your last sentence there. Because if it was contrary to Catholic Church, then it doesn't apply to my question.

[Aloysius]

It was contrary to Catholic Doctrine already, that was speculation gone bad. They had no right to speculate that the Church would reverse the position she has held since her very foundation.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Thanks Laude! You're the coolest Church Scholar I know. Vaya Con Dios.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 22 2004, 03:31 PM'] Thanks Laude! You're the coolest Church Scholar I know. Vaya Con Dios. [/quote]
Muchos gracias amiga! Dios te bendiga!

Wish I had more time to be on here talkin with ya!

La Paz de Christo

[Aloysius]

i just noticed the example you gave. this is considered a disciplinary matter and thus is not speculation in regards to doctrine but rather speculation in regards to how the Liturgy should be carried out. Like, I could speculate that the Tridentine Mass would be instituted as the norm one day, or I could speculate that the words of the Mass could be changed (though not the words of the Consecration, those are clearly laid out in Scripture). Just like I could speculate that it would once again be required for us to kneel to receive the Eucharist. In obedience and humility, though, if I go to a Mass where that is not the norm I should respect and conform to that showing a sign of communion with the other people.

However, i believe it would be contrary to the Faith to declare that it is a Doctrinal Necessity that one must kneel to receive the Eucharist, because the Church has made it clear that standing is Doctrinally allowed as well. That makes it a matter of discipline, whichever action (as they are both Doctrinally allowable) the Church prefers will be put in place. You can speculate that a different discipline would be put in place if you want, no prob there. It's polite and respectful, however, to follow the actions that are the norm of the diocese so long as those actions are Doctrinally allowable.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 22 2004, 01:18 PM'] I thought I read that in the early day they didn't always worship it. It was on an apologetics board to explain how development occurs.

We can squibble over whether or not past church documents have been taken out of context of the intent. But  I suppose you answered the question. You can be a minority to the extreme that believes something, but as long as it doesn't contradict it's okay. Right? Please answer this question.

Also, I better give an example or people won't understand me. This might be a bad example but still answer that question. One thinks kneeling before the Eucharist is necessary, one does not. A pope later says it is necessary.

It must be okay that the kneeler thinks it's necessary and even okay if he acts on it. [/quote]
The Church has always worshipped Christ's presence in the Eucharist, and in fact to celebrate the Eucharist is by definition, to offer worship to God. [cf., Ignatius of Antioch, [u]Letter to the Ephesians[/u], 13:1-2] The understanding of 'how' Christ is present in the Eucharist underwent development, i.e., how the mystery was explained; but this did not involve a change in the Church's belief, because from the very beginning the Church has always held that through the prayer of consecration the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

I think you have a defective understanding of what is meant by the term 'development of doctrine,' because it does not mean that something new is suddenly believed; instead, it involves the explication of something already implicitly believed.

I suggest that you read the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and St. Justin Martyr, because the belief that the Eucharist is the very body and blood of Christ was held by everyone in the early Church. Where you appear to be having a problem is in distinguishing between the substance of that belief and the external signs of worship given to the Eucharist, the former is unchanging, the latter is dependent upon one's culture. As an example, in Eastern Catholic Churches we do not normally kneel in order to adore the Eucharistic presence of Christ; instead, we either prostrate ourselves by going down on both kneels and then touching our foreheads to the ground, or we make a profound bow of the upper body at the waist. A member of the Roman Rite normally genuflects, i.e., he goes down on one knee, or kneels; but regardless, you are confusing culturally conditioned actions with the substance of the doctrine itself. So, whether a man kneels or whether he prostrates himself on the ground, in either case he is offering adoration to Christ's Eucharistic presence. The manner in which the adoration is given can differ, but the belief motivating the action is one and the same.

Edited July 22, 2004 by Apotheoun

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 22 2004, 03:18 PM'] I thought I read that in the early day they didn't always worship it. It was on an apologetics board to explain how development occurs.

We can squibble over whether or not past church documents have been taken out of context of the intent. But  I suppose you answered the question. You can be a minority to the extreme that believes something, but as long as it doesn't contradict it's okay. Right? Please answer this question.

Also, I better give an example or people won't understand me. This might be a bad example but still answer that question. One thinks kneeling before the Eucharist is necessary, one does not. A pope later says it is necessary.

It must be okay that the kneeler thinks it's necessary and even okay if he acts on it. [/quote]
Dairygirl: Adoration of The Blessed Sacrament has been around since the dawn of Christianity Early Catholic hermits used to reserve the Eucharist in their cells. From at least the middle of the third century, it was very general for the solitaries in the East, especially in Palestine and Egypt, to preserve the consecrated elements in the caves or hermitages where they lived.


May God Bless!
-conservativecatholic

Edited July 22, 2004 by conservativecatholic

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]
In short, it was what is technically called a Development in doctrine.
But there seems to be a qwerty ignorance, not only about
the technical, but the natural meaning of the word Development.
The critics of Catholic theology seem to suppose that it is not so
much an evolution as an evasion; that it is at best an adaptation.
They fancy that its very success is the success of surrender.
But that is not the natural meaning of the word Development.
When we talk of a child being well-developed, we mean
that he has grown bigger and stronger with his own strength;
not that he is padded with borrowed pillows or walks on stilts
to make him look taller.  When we say that a puppy develops into
a dog, we do not mean that his growth is a gradual compromise
with a cat; we mean that he becomes more doggy and not less.
Development is the expansion of all the possibilities and implications
of a doctrine, as there is time to distinguish them and draw
them out...G. K. Chesterton[/quote]




If you want to read up on this go here;

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/can_dogma_develop.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/can_dogma_develop.asp[/url]

[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ13.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ13.HTM[/url]

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 22 2004, 02:42 PM'] I would like to know if anyone here knows how much Catholics are allowed to speculate on the development of doctrine.

Another issue I've asked but never got a clear answer on is this. If a Catholic thinks doctrine will develop further and acts accordingly is he in sin according to the Catholic Church? (I realize that she must always follow her conscience.. but I mean is she strictly prohibited by doing this?) [/quote]
its difficult to say rather or not acting on such speculation would be a "sin" per se. but, i do think that it would be imprudent and unwise. when we speculate, and act on speculation, we make ourselves the authority and we assume what the church may or may not do in the future. also, it is important to know rather the speculation conforms w/ Catholic doctrine. here are two examples:

1. as someone mentioned already, before Humanae Vitae, many people used contraceptives b/c they "speculated" that the Church would eventually teach in favor of their use. this was unwise and even sinful b/c the speculation was against Chuch teaching.

2. however, w/ a belief in "Mary as coredemptrix" this has not yet been infallibly defined by the Church. however, b/c it is a logical extension of Marian doctrine and b/c--when properly understood--it does not contradict Catholic teaching, it is acceptable to hold this belief.

if one has a proper understanding of development of doctrine and of the teaching of the Church, then he will easily be able to discern rather or not his speculation is valid or not. example #1 did not constitute valid development of doctrine b/c the Chuch has always taught against contraception. example #2 is valid development of doctrine b/c "Mary as coredemptrix" is a logical extension of the other Marian doctrines and b/c many Church Fathers profess a similar belief.

i hope this helps.

pax christi,
phatcatholic