CCC 66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
Good stuff. You guys are hitting on an area that I have found difficult to reconcile myself. While I have not read Newman's development of doctrine, I would propose that since it is not an authoritative magisterial document, Catholics are in no way bound to accept its contents.
Now, on the other hand, I am NOT saying that it is probably true and very good for the most part. It is just that I understand Vatican I very clearly, with Vatican II less so. When Vatican II is unclear, I search the meaning by the Council Fathers (a la Fr. Brian Harrison), and/or then interpret it in light of Vatican I, Trent or some other authoritative teaching (encyclicals, Church Fathers, Sacred Scripture) that IS clear. I believe this IS the correct and proper meaning of "Vatican II in light of Tradition," isn't it?
Thanks for your posts. They have been enlightening. I thought I was the only one thinking about this stuff.
9. The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own.
*Points of Doctrine, new or old, are Tradition