Development Of Doctrine

[dairygirl4u2c]

I am inquiering into how the development of doctrine in the Catholic Church occurs. I would agree that it would be viable for some instances but others would be more suspect. So just so I have something to measure the development by, could someone show/explain how it could and could not legitimately occur?

Edited March 31, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[jrndveritatis]

Well, I haven't read this so I'm not going to comment, but I think the best resource would have to be:

[url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html"]An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, by Venerable John Henry Newman[/url]

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
3/31 - Fifth Wednesday of Lent

That's a really good source, but the Victorian lingo can be difficult to read. Cardinal Newman wrote that book as an Anglican priest; it doesn't really have an ending because he stopped writing when he had convinced himself that doctrine can, in fact, change.

Also, I think an analogy can be helpful here. When a puppy is born, it grows into a dog. A puppy doesn't change into a dog (common sense tells us that the puppy and the dog are the same thing, just at different stages in life). A puppy becomes more "doggy" with growth, not less. Likewise, the Church becomes more like Christ when her doctrine grows (not changes). It's not that we don't [i]know[/i] the doctrines Christ gave to us (we do), it's that we have yet to entirely understand them.

[megamattman1]

Newman is kinda hard to follow at times. But I think he does make the point, but I could be wrong.

Just follow the puppy dog scenario!

Edited March 31, 2004 by megamattman1

[dairygirl4u2c]

This is all well and good, but I need specifics if I am going to have something to measure anything by.

Or else how can you know that what you're taught now is fully understood? How do you know that contraception as a general rule of thumb is bad, because God wants us to have children, but that it is not necessarily bad all the time? Or apply this concept to any doctrinal issue. If you read the Catholic Church's catechism, it's worded very generally.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]If you read the Catholic Church's catechism, it's worded very generally.[/quote]

That is why you shouldn't read the new catechism. It has GRAVE translation errors, and, like you said, it is extremely general.

[quote]How do you know that contraception as a general rule of thumb is bad, because God wants us to have children, but that it is not necessarily bad all the time?[/quote]

Contracetion IS bad all the time...

Here is a good example: the early Church did not have extravagant churches and Mass ceremonies. This is due first to the fact that it must be done in secret. Also, however, it deals with the fact that the early Chrisitians did not fully comprehend the holiness and sanctity of the Mass. A legitimate progress of doctrine occured in which the Mass was advanced in its prayers, uniformity, and beautiful ceremonial actions. Also, the churches and the altars were created to be as beautiful as possible to be fitting for God. This all makes sense because this advancement is moving toward holiness and reverence for God. However, a break with logical progression of tradition is seen in the New Mass where everything was de-ritualized and turned into something very unspecial, whereas the Traditional Mass was not the old hum-drum vernacular you hear throughout the entire day. It was a journey into the divine, a truly supernatural experience. The New Mass is far from this (apart from the Conesecration, for Our Lord coming to Earth is not hum-drum), but the actions and reverence shown at the New Mass does very little to show any belief in the supernatural. Further, another perfect example from the New Mass that is a complete innovation and break with tradition is hand Communion. This practice does not have to be accepted by Catholics because it is not dogmatic and is completely against right reason and is a break with tradition and lessens belief in the Real Presence. God bless.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
3/31 - Fifth Wednesday of Lent

The Universal Catechism (2nd Edition) is worded generally for one very good reason: it's not causistry that the Church is practicing.

Casuistry deals with individual cases and is often helpful in the training of new priests for the confessional. The Universal Catechism merely sets up principles for action - hence the supposed vagueness.

By the way, the translation of the first edition of the Catechism (from the French) had grave translation errors - the green-colored (red in Canada) edition has no serious errors, from what I recall. Trust it with your heart, since Holy Mother Church can't go wrong.

[megamattman1]

This is somewhat a side not, but how do you know what's fallible and infallible. Does it say?

[Ellenita]

Good question meggamattman1! I was wondering that myself.....

Also are there any guides to studying it? It's such a wonderfully rich resource....