Dissent In The Church

[dairygirl4u2c]

Is this all correct phatcatholic?

And how do you explain that contraception can not change? And what would be a theoretical reason for it to?

Also could you help me understand what proper "development of doctrine" is?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 6 2004, 02:02 PM'] Yes I have read and understood your post. You are saying that Boniface may have thought that there was not salvation at all outside of the CC in the strict sense, but that it was only bc he was lacking full knowledge and wisdom to know any differently. [/quote]
i'm sorry, but that is not what i'm saying. i haven't said anything remotely like that in any of my posts in this thread. what i'm saying is this:

--the church's stance on "outside the church no salvation" has NEVER changed.
--this is because:

1. the broad and strict interpretation of "outside the church no salvation" have BOTH ALWAYS existed.
2. the broad and strict interpretations are NOT IN CONFLICT w/ one another.

THAT is what i'm saying, and i feel that both statements 1 and 2 have been aptly proven.

[quote]So as for contraception it has always been a strict interpretation. You could not go from strict to broad because anything else would be outside the realm that has been taught.[/quote]
i think contraception is beyond the scope of this discussion. [b]first off[/b], we would have to define what a "strict" interpretation is, and what any theoretically "broad" interpretations would be. i would rather stick w/ the doctrine at hand: "outside the church no salvation." [b]secondly[/b], you must know that [b]NONE of the doctrines of the Church have ever changed in their most fundamental nature.[/b] they never will. so, it is rather pointless for catholics to redefine doctrines or ask themselves "well, what would i do if this or that doctrine changed?" they don't change. over 2,000 years of history has proven this to us.

i hope that i have proven that to you.

in my next post i will address what can be considered legitimate "development of doctrine."

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

i had originally intended to summarize legitimate development of doctrine. however, i honestly have a headache at the moment, so i don't feel like now would be the time to attempt to do it justice. at the same time, i realize that this question of yours has gone unanswered for long enough. therefore, until i can give a more personalized response, i give you the following articles:

[b]--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ529.HTM"]Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?[/url]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ21.HTM"]Overview of Development of Doctrine[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp"]Can Dogma Develop?[/url][/b]

all three articles are easy to read, and not very long. i encourage you to read them. i will respond w/ my own thoughts as soon as i can.

pham, you are welcome to pitch in on this discussion in my absence.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

ps: dairygirl, i hope u don't think this post is a cop-out!

Edited March 10, 2004 by phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

Maybe it'd help if I elaborated on this that you wrote:

[quote]DISPUTE: "Does the present interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church" contradict the interpretation of Boniface and his contemporaries?"

NOTE: present interpretation is lenient, or "broad." boniface interpretation is "strict."

REPLY: to the question we are disputing, you would say "yes" and i of course would say "no."

--are you w/ me so far? am i correct in stating what our DISPUTE is over? please answer yes or no.

now, it is my understanding that your REPLY is "yes" b/c you see the broad interpretation as one that is a new or novel change, and that this change contradicts the strict interpretation that the Church has previously taught.

--is this a correct summary of your position? please answer yes or no.[/quote]

My answer is no. I don't see the broad interpretation as a new or novel change. I see Boniface's strict interpretation as a new or novel change.



[quote]Yes I have read and understood your post. You are saying that Boniface may have thought that there was not salvation at all outside of the CC in the strict sense, but that it was only bc he was lacking full knowledge and wisdom to know any differently. [/quote]

I did somwhat assume that from what you said. But I have no other chocie but to assume that.

If like you showed, the early christians thought that it is possible to be saved outside the CC yet the CC is the norm, and people after Boniface (and his era of popes) taught this same thing, but yet Boniface and his era of popes thought ONLY in the CC could one be saved, their thought on the matter contratdicts the lenient positions.

Unless you are willing to argue that Boniface had it in mind that ppl outside the CC could be saved possibly. Is this your assumption? There really is no way of knowing, but considering his strong words, and the evidence of people back in his day thought, I would say that's likely a cop out.

I'm sorry but if that's not your assumption, I can only assume that he lacked full knowledge to know that it is possible for someone outside the norm of CC to be saved, since the CC really teaches that they could be saved.
Are you following me?

Edited March 11, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]first off, we would have to define what a "strict" interpretation is, and what any theoretically "broad" interpretations would be. i would rather stick w/ the doctrine at hand: "outside the church no salvation." secondly, you must know that NONE of the doctrines of the Church have ever changed in their most fundamental nature. [/quote]

I'm not saying the doctrine will CHANGE, I'm saying it will DEVELOP. The strict interpretation would be no contraceptoin, ever. The lenient interpretation would be contraception is wrong only as a rule of thumb since God wants us to have kids. Perhaps instead of the poor (especially Africans) abstaining or monitering the cycles and missing the love aspect of sex since they can not afford to have kids while the rich do not have to abstain at all, we can use it since God intended us to have kids.

If I were to show that some early pope thought that contraceptoin was okay, and the current pope says not at all, then I could say this is alright, correct? Bc the current pope would parallel Boniface and the early teaching would parralel the early teaching on salvation and the current teaching on salvation would parallel the theoretical teaching of a future pope. Theorteically, if I were to show this, then I could argue development of doctrine correct?

[Gray Eminence]

[i]Laudetur Jesus Christus.[/i]

Excellent discussion (I’m leaving the specific question of contraception aside temporarily).

When it comes to definitive written expressions involving the deposit of faith, the intent of the human writer (insofar as it can be deduced) will have historical significance and spiritual value, but it is a mistake to focus too much on it. The human writer will have had many ideas, concerns, and even mixed motives, but the Holy Spirit does great things in and with these writings.

Boniface, for example, was having serious geopolitical issues and wanted to reaffirm the temporal and spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff against the contemporaneous threats to that authority. Thus, in the early part of the document, he says, “he who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter wrongly interprets the word of the Lord….”

However historically interesting that may be, what Boniface solemnly defined was “that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
[i]Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanæ creaturæ declaramus, dicimus, diffinimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.[/i]

I think phatcatholic did an excellent job in that extensive March 4 post of showing how this definition fits in with the teaching of the Church throughout the ages.

When interpreting definitive statements of faith, we need to avoid the twin extremes of textual isolationism on the one hand (focusing on a particular text without regard to its canonical and/or ecclesial context) and arbitrary subjectivism on the other (a text means whatever the person currently in charge – some Catholics say that person would be the reigning Pontiff, some theologians [i]de facto [/i]say it would be themselves – says it means, without regard to any objective reality).

We can confidently trust the Holy Spirit to continue guiding the Magisterium in preserving and teaching the deposit of faith, developing doctrine appropriately without internal contradiction.

[b]O God, who did instruct the hearts of the faithful by the light of the Holy Spirit, grant us in the same spirit to be truly wise, and ever to rejoice in His consolation, through Christ our Lord. Amen[/b]

[Dave]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 11 2004, 11:18 AM'] I'm not saying the doctrine will CHANGE, I'm saying it will DEVELOP. The strict interpretation would be no contraceptoin, ever. The lenient interpretation would be contraception is wrong only as a rule of thumb since God wants us to have kids. Perhaps instead of the poor (especially Africans) abstaining or monitering the cycles and missing the love aspect of sex since they can not afford to have kids while the rich do not have to abstain at all, we can use it since God intended us to have kids.

[/quote]
If the doctrine on contraception later permitted contraception to a degree, that woudl be a change, not a development. Development in doctrine doesn't entail a doctrine coming to mean the opposite of what it once meant.

[Gray Eminence]

[i]Laudetur Jesus Christus.[/i]

[quote]If I were to show that some early pope thought that contraceptoin was okay….[/quote]

My recollection (and I could be wrong on this) is that there have been no solemn definitions (i.e., infallible) by the Magisterium on any moral matter. I also feel pretty confident that while [i]Humanae Vitae [/i]contains no solemn definitions or anathemas, neither are there any solemn definitions or anathemas by the Magisterium of the Universal Church saying contraception is okay anywhere in history.

What I’m saying is that we don’t have any definitive statements on contraception on the same level as Boniface’s [i]Unam Sanctam[/i].

That being said, the overwhelming weight of Church teaching comes down pretty heavily against contraception, so much so that it would be a grave error to say that the Church teaches contraception is okay and that the weight of this teaching must be fully respected by all Catholics.

Of course, there are other reasons to embrace this teaching beyond the fact that Mother Church says so: consider the beauty which is the unity of the unitive and procreative aspects of the Marriage act, consider the selfishness of “the contraceptive mentality” and the great damage it has wrought upon our world, etc. etc. etc.

Is it sometimes a challenge to live out this teaching? Yes. Do I speak in condemnation of those who practice contraception? No.

[b]Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Your faithful and kindle in them the fire of [u][i]Your [/i][/u]love.[/b]

[p0lar_bear]

Gray Eminence,

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

The reason Humanae Vitae caused such an uproar was because it maintained the Church's teaching that artificial contraception is gravely sinful when a lot of people thought it should have reversed that teaching.

It has been the constant and definitive teaching of the Church that artificial contraception is morally wrong. Pope Pius XI addresses this issue in his encyclical On Christian Marriage, (Casti Connubii), 1930. He states that, “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” He explains that this is because “to use this divine gift destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their most intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God and His will.” The Church, therefore, teaches that the use of contraception is of grave matter. Pope Paul VI (Humanae Vitae), Pope John Paul II (Evangelium Vitae), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Catechism all uphold this constant teaching.

On the other hand, there are statements in support of Natural Family Planning (NFP). The first of these was Pope Pius XII’s Address to the Congress of the Italian Association of Catholic Midwives (October 29, 1951).

[quote]The use of the “infertile periods” for conjugal union can be an abuse if the couple, for unworthy reasons, seeks in this way to avoid having children, thus lowering the number of births in their family below the morally correct level. This morally correct level must be established by taking into account not only the good of one’s own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of the whole of mankind (Pope John Paul II, General Audience, September 5, 1984).[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

Perhaps its like you said, since Boniface was going agaist heresies, he was just affirming the fact that you had to be saved by being a Catholic, but knew non's could theoretically be saved.

[quote]When interpreting definitive statements of faith, we need to avoid the twin extremes of textual isolationism on the one hand (focusing on a particular text without regard to its canonical and/or ecclesial context) and arbitrary subjectivism on the other (a text means whatever the person currently in charge – some Catholics say that person would be the reigning Pontiff, some theologians de facto say it would be themselves – says it means, without regard to any objective reality).

We can confidently trust the Holy Spirit to continue guiding the Magisterium in preserving and teaching the deposit of faith, developing doctrine appropriately without internal contradiction.
[/quote]

Okay so who should decide what it means?

Or are you jsut saying that your faith in the CC leads you to feel whatever has been said was in good doctrinal standing even though it may appear otherwise?

But since I am not a Catholic, but inquiering into the Catholic religion, I can not just settle without a rationale.

As a Catholic trying to convince me, should I believe he thought fully on the matter (that Boniface and such popes had it in mind that non-Catholics could be saved) or that he didn't know any better due to his human element?

Those are also what I see it coming down to. I don't see how I can not not assume one of these two things.

Or are you willing to brush this aside since all other CC teachings should compel me to believe that whatever was taught was taught in Truth even though it may appear on the surface differently?

Edited March 11, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Gray Eminence]

[i]Laudetur Jesus Christus.[/i]

P0lar_bear,

Please read what I said more carefully and then be specific when you say I was wrong. Although I am often wrong on things, I was trying to be precise and I fear you may have missed a nuance or two somewhere. I certainly do not disagree with anything you affirmed.

Dairygirl4u2c,

As I said, I think [b]phatcatholic [/b]nicely put Boniface's statement within the overall context of Catholic teaching on the subject. Also, what was going on in Boniface's mind at the time is historically interesting (his primary focus was most probably [b]not [/b]non-Catholics, BTW) but not really the most important point.

Every human statement, of course, has certain human limitations (yours, mine, Boniface's, et al), no matter how wise the writer. That being said, we believe that the grace of the Holy Spirit is at work in a special way in the most solemn pronouncements of the Church's teaching office and, in another special way, in all that is stated in Sacred Scripture.

As individuals, when we read any of these statements, we use our own intelligence to understand them, relying on the context of other parts of Scripture and Church Teaching, on the guidance of teachers and wise people (most especially the Successors of the Apostles), on the help of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, etc.

My apologies if I am unclear in any of this.

[dairygirl4u2c]

So would the CC have me believe that Boniface and such popes had it in mind that non-Catholics could be saved or that he didn't know any better due to his human element?

It would seem that only one of these are possible, correct?

[Gray Eminence]

[i]Laudetur Jesus Christus.[/i]

dairygirl4u2c, the question is not really answerable in a definitive way (best guess would be the latter alternative, if any) and it’s really not the important point when it come to Catholic teaching, as I have tried to say.

I would be sincerely interested in knowing what your point is in framing this question.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 11 2004, 10:04 AM'] My answer is no. I don't see the broad interpretation as a new or novel change. I see Boniface's strict interpretation as a new or novel change. [/quote]
hehe, u frustrate me to know end! that's ok tho dairygirl.........nothin but luv for ya

to respond to this quote, i am surprised that u are saying this. i thought this whole debate stemmed from the fact that the more recent interpretations of "outside the church no salvation" seem different then the strict interpretation that Boniface has. but, by ur words here, ur saying that ur beef is w/ the strict interpretation.

you are asserting that the strict interpretation is new, right? well, in that case, allow me to provide early christian testimony which proves that the strict interpretation existed LLOOOONNGG before boniface:

[color=blue][b]Shepherd of Hermas, 80 AD:[/b]
These apostles and the teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, when they fell asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to those who had fallen asleep earlier, and they gave them the seal of the preaching. They therefore went down into the water with them, and came up again.4

[b]St. Justin the Martyr, from the middle of the second century:[/b]
"Then they [converts] are led by us where there is water, and are regenerated. . . . For Christ said: Unless you are born again, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

[b]St. Irenaeus, late second century:[/b]
"God places in the Church apostles, prophets, doctors . . . those who are not partakers of these, who do not run to the Church, deprive themselves of life through evil opinions and wicked working."

[b]Clement of Alexandria, late second century:[/b]
"He who does not enter through the door . . . is a thief and a robber. Therefore it is necessary for them to learn the truth through Christ and to be saved, even if they happen on philosophy."

[b]Origen, early third century: [/b]
If anyone of that people wishes to be saved, let him come to this house, so that he can attain salvation, to this house in which the blood of Christ is a sign of redemption. . . . Therefore let no one persuade himself, let no one deceive himself: outside this house, that is, outside the Church, no one is saved: for if anyone goes outside, he becomes guilty of his own death.

[b]St. Cyprian, middle third century:[/b]
"Whoever separates himself from the Church . . . is separated from the promises of the Church. . . . He cannot have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his mother. If anyone was able to escape outside the ark of Noah, he too who is outside the Church escapes." Even more sternly:
....
"The power of baptism cannot be greater or more powerful, can it, than confession, than suffering, such that someone who confesses Christ before men, is baptized with his own blood. And yet, neither does this baptism profit a heretic, even though after confessing Christ, he is killed outside the Church."

[b]Lactantius:[/b]
"Whoever does not enter there [the Church], or whoever goes out from there, is foreign to the hope of life and salvation."

[b]St. Fulgentius of Ruspe:[/b]
Not only all pagans, but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics, who finish their lives outside the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire. . . . No one, howsoever much he may have given alms, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.[/color]

....you get the idea. after reading this testimony, you must note two things:

1. here is proof that the strict interpretation existed before Boniface.
2. therefore, [b]the strict interpretation is NOT new or novel.[/b]

now, on to ur other quotes:

[quote]If like you showed, the early christians thought that it is possible to be saved outside the CC yet the CC is the norm, and people after Boniface (and his era of popes) taught this same thing, but yet  Boniface and his era of popes thought ONLY in the CC could one be saved, their thought on the matter contratdicts the lenient positions. [/quote]
well, first off, i have now proved that the strict interpretation is not new. secondly, even if it was new, it would not and does not contradict the lenient interpretation. this i have proven in my earlier posts. in case u missed it, i will again prove that here:[quote]now, on to [b]ASSUMPTION #2. this assumption claims that the broad interpretation and the strict interpretation contradict each other. they do not.[/b] the reason they do not is very biblical in its premise. and, b/c it is biblical, this answer has existed at least as long as the bible has, and even before them in the teachings of the apostles. this answer is found in the following exerpt from the article i am drawing my information from (please read this slowly and carefully):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So God did and does indeed write His law on the hearts of men. Objectively, this is done by the Spirit of God, the divine Logos, as we said. As Justin [Martyr] says, those who follow the Logos were and are Christians.

Now if we add still other words of St. Paul in Romans we can go further. In [b]Rom 8:9[/b]: "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to Him." So, those who do have the Spirit of Christ, and follow the Logos as He writes the law on their hearts, do indeed belong to Christ. But still further, according to the same Paul, to belong to Christ means to be a member of Christ (cf. [b]1 Cor 12:27[/b]). Again further, to be a member of Christ, is also to be a member of His Church for the Church is the Body of Christ.

[b]So we seem to have found the much needed solution: Those who follow the Spirit of Christ, the Logos who writes the law on their hearts, are Christians, are members of Christ, are members of His Church. They may lack indeed external adherence; they may never have heard of the Church. But yet, in the substantial sense, without formal adherence, they do belong to Christ, to His Church. [/b]

They can also be called sons of God, for [b]Romans 8:14[/b] adds: "All who are led by the Spirit are sons of God." As sons, of course, they are coheirs with Christ ([b]Rom 8:17[/b]), and so will inherit the kingdom with Him.

We can even add that objectively — though probably those who drafted the text or voted for it did not realize it — Vatican II taught the same thing: "For all who belong to Christ, having His Spirit, coalesce into one Church."

In saying this, we are not contradicting the teaching of Pius XII (Mystical Body Encyclical). He spoke of some as being ordered to the Church by a certain desire which they did not recognize. We admit that. To add to truth is not to deny truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b]therefore, ASSUMPTION #2 is refuted as well. [/b][/quote]

do you see now? even if the strict interpretation was novel, it DOES NOT contradict the lenient one. maybe other members of the pham can provide further reasons why.

[quote]Unless you are willing to argue that Boniface had it in mind that ppl outside the CC could be saved possibly.  Is this your assumption? There really is no way of knowing, but considering his strong words, and the evidence of people back in his day thought, I would say that's likely a cop out. [/quote]
dairygirl, i don't care what Boniface "had in mind" or what his intentions were, or what he did or did not know. i have already stated, and Gray Emminence has affirmed that what Boniface "thought" is not the issue here and it is not even that important to our discussion. i have already refuted your claims, and i did so w/o even mentioning wht Boniface "had in mind."

[quote]I'm sorry but if that's not your assumption, I can only assume that he lacked full knowledge to know that it is possible for someone outside the norm of CC to be saved, since the CC really teaches that they could be saved.
Are you following me?  [/quote]
you are going to have to prove to me why it matters how much knowledge Boniface had or what he was thinking. as far as i can tell, this has no bearing on our argument.

NOTE: before you attempt to prove that it matters what he was thinking, please show me how my refutations are faulty or how i have not refuted your claims about the doctrine of "outside the church no salvation."

thank you and May God Bless You,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 11 2004, 10:18 AM']
I'm not saying the doctrine will CHANGE, I'm saying it will DEVELOP. The strict interpretation would be no contraceptoin, ever. The lenient interpretation would be contraception is wrong only as a rule of thumb since God wants us to have kids. Perhaps instead of the poor (especially Africans) abstaining or monitering the cycles and missing the love aspect of sex since they can not afford to have kids while the rich do not have to abstain at all, we can use it since God intended us to have kids.

If I were to show that some early pope thought that contraceptoin was okay, and the current pope says not at all, then I could say this is alright, correct? Bc the current pope would parallel Boniface and the early teaching would parralel the early teaching on salvation and the current teaching on salvation would parallel the theoretical teaching of a future pope. Theorteically, if I were to show this, then I could argue development of doctrine correct? [/quote]
i would rather not address this hypothetical situation. there are so many nuances to the church's teaching on "outside the church no salvation" that no real parallel can be made. however, the same general rule applies to ALL cases:

--doctrines "develop" when the church's understanding of a doctrine increases, w/o the doctrine changing in its fundamental meaning

if one wishes to get any more particular than this, i think that the development of a particular doctrine must be viewed and defended on a case-by-case basis. quite frankly, i have devoted too much time to "outside the church no salvation" in this thread to simultaneously address a hypothetical situation.

pax christi,
phatcatholic