Unfolding, development, evolving...I think we have the same definition in view.
All bad, all good? No, of course not. But by what standard do we accept as useful or at least neutral a change? I submit that as Jesus said, we follow the pattern/model he set and that is described in the Scriptures.
Right now there are those who identify themselves as Catholics (no doubt you would say “misidentify”) calling for homosexual marriage and women priests as a progressive “unfolding” of Christian doctrine somehow.
But what is the pattern Christ set?
Even a long standing development is not made acceptable by long practice. Remember the wheat and weeds?
“Is there a difference in your mind between quoting a text and quoting a note to the text? There is a difference in my mind.”
Agreed, but the footnote of Catholic scholars whose work has the ‘nihil obstat’ would seem to agree more with my understanding than yours on titles and who Jesus addressed his comments to.
“Consequently, if the above is granted, some thing's being a change does not logically imply that it is a change for the worse.”
True, but what standard shall we use in deciding which change is acceptable?
But evolution is turning out. IF the Darwinists are right,you got your grandma the lemur and she gets zapped with cosmic rays, and then Paw gets too close to something he should have stayed away from, and, blammo, a NEW thing evolves, the human you! (I don't care WHAT they say about you....)
So when I hear somebody talking about dogma "evolving" I slam on the brakes.
I wouldn't say the Obama-loving, baby-aborting, contracepting, women-ordaining (as IF), homosexual-act-approving Catholic aren't Catholics. They're just really bad Catholics, worse even than I! And they're the ones that talk about "evolving." Literally. I confronted someone who was preparing for confirmation because she was on Facebook supporting "gay marriage." Before I got far at all she went off in an eight-cylinder huff yapping about how she thought the Church was more "evolved."
Gag me.
Oh my yes I remember the wheat and weeds, Therefore I pray that I "wholesome grain and pure may be," and I tolerate a lot because I am waiting for the Lord of the harvest to give the command.
(Sorry to be so scatter-fire. I'm working down your post.) I read the notes in the NAB and consider them thoughtfully. I owe the bishops that much obedience and docility. But I don't take them (or too much of "the assured results of modern scientific criticism") as fixed truths.
True, but what standard shall we use in deciding which change is acceptable?
Well, I do want to catch my breath a little over reaching agreement that not all change is bad before I go trying to say how I evaluate stuff.
I think this is related to what "the fathers" mean to us. I see them making the rough cuts in doctrine, while later writers try to refine and organize and systematize. And it interests me that while some of what is written early on is very "technical," a lot is more poetic -- in the way that the writings of John are poetic, though not to the same mind-bogglingly lovely degree.
Oh darn, suddenly I'm tired. I'll think about this and try to say something coherent tomorrow PM. Thanks for sticking with the conversation.