Posted on 04/04/2002 8:13:02 AM PST by maryz
I think you have a problem with the definition of Doctrine. Here is how Fr John A Hardon, S.J. defines it in the "Modern Catholic Dictionary:"Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church's magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are thoser doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God."
I think we can both agree that Fr. Hardon was orthodox and his definition is similarly orthodox. Your problem begins by misunderstanding what Doctrine means. It certainly can not change.
In another post on another thread, you mentioned you had books by Bernard Lonergan etc. Did you ever read anything that referred to St. Vincent of Lerins?
Did the Church at some point realize that slavery, on which it had at least remained morally neutral for centuries, was suddenly now immoral?
I could have cited many other sources
Other than your personal opinion that it does change, please cite any source from any catechism ever written that says Doctrine changes: cite any statement by any Doctor of the Catholic Church that says Doctrine changes: cite any Ecumenical Council that says Doctrine changes; Cite any Encyclical that says Doctrine changes; cite any Catholic Dictionary that says doctrine changes; cite any Catholic Encyclopedia that says Doctrine changes.
I can save you time. There are NO such statements. Doctrine develops. It does not change. That is rudimentary Catholicsim, not "Vaticanese."
Why is it weird? Slavery was once acceptable, now it's not. Why cannot contraception not change, or "develop" in the same way, except vice versa? Contraception is a moral teaching, slavery is a moral teaching.
I accept your definition of doctrine. Get off it. Use whatever word you want to use, but discuss the comparison between development as it applies to contraception and slavery.
The Pope is trying to do a similar thing with capital punishment: it has been acceptable for years, and now the Pope wants to reverse that acceptability.
Posted on 4/29/02 8:01 PM Eastern by Notwithstanding
 |
CRISIS IN THE CHURCH (60:00) Monday April 29- 8:00 pm ET LIVE
|
1 posted on 4/29/02 8:01 PM Eastern by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Coverage by journalists and commentators who love the Church and are mad as hell.
Really? But the catechism I was expected to teach Sunday School from (some 25 years ago) was -- with its chapter on mysticism that did not include one Catholic mystic and another chapter devoted to (!!!) why it's better to do things in a group than alone. I've mercifully blocked out the rest of it. (I did not teach from it; I bought my own.)
It is weird because the context was contraception not slavery. You continue to assert there was both a Doctrine of Slavery and it changed and that something similar can happen in reference to contraception. You seem to think that Catholic Doctrine taught approval of Slavery then changed to condemnation and, conversely, the Catholic Doctrine prohibiting contraception can change from condemnation to approval.
Fine, Prove your assertion. Cite me the Catholic Doctrine of Slavery using the definition I posted and you agreed to. Having cited that, show me how it changed and who changed it.
. The Pope is trying to do a similar thing with capital punishment: it has been acceptable for years, and now the Pope wants to reverse that acceptability.
Now,Catholic Doctrine of Capital Punishment is an example of development. Check the Catechism. Capital Punishment is STILL licit.
You may "accept" the definition of Doctrine but the accpetance appears to be only rhetorical
It is weird because the context was contraception not slavery. You continue to assert there was both a Doctrine of Slavery and it changed and that something similar can happen in reference to contraception. You seem to think that Catholic Doctrine taught approval of Slavery then changed to condemnation and, conversely, the Catholic Doctrine prohibiting contraception can change from condemnation to approval.
Fine, Prove your assertion. Cite me the Catholic Doctrine of Slavery using the definition I posted and you agreed to. Having cited that, show me how it changed and who changed it.
. The Pope is trying to do a similar thing with capital punishment: it has been acceptable for years, and now the Pope wants to reverse that acceptability.
Now,Catholic Doctrine of Capital Punishment is an example of development. Check the Catechism. Capital Punishment is STILL licit.
You may "accept" the definition of Doctrine but the accpetance appears to be only rhetorical
I thought this might be helpful
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.