Newman more than likely did not mean in matters of teaching.
The laity do not correct the clergy in matters of teaching - as an example - dogma's and doctrines. As long as it conforms to exact teaching of said doctrines/dogmas.
The laity can go to a higher up and report some crazy stuff being taught - like some clergyman might be teaching women can be priests, or homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle choice.
That's how we safe vouch the Church in the terms he was discussing.
But no, he would never warrant that the laity can make choices of what is taught.
It absolutely is a metter of doctrine and dogma.Would you say then that Arianism was not a matter of doctrine and dogma?
It absolutely is a metter of doctrine and dogma.
However, the Church never declared that Arianism was correct. As a matter of fact - it condemned this heresy at the Council of Nicaea.
The Church has never taught an incorrect doctrine. Jesus guaranteed His Church would be guided to ALL truth by the Holy Apirit (John 16:12-15) - and whatever she ordained on earth would be ordained in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:18, John 20:23)
His argument, however, is neither particularly original nor true. It follows a thesis first set out in a 1972 book, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing by Dean Kelley. Drawing on Kelley's argument, Douthat believes that in the 1960s liberal Christianity overly accommodated to the culture and loosened its ties to tradition. This rendered the church irrelevant and led to a membership hemorrhage. Over the years, critics of liberal churches used numerical decline not only as a sign of churchgoer dissatisfaction but of divine displeasure. To those who subscribe to Kelley's analysis, liberal Christianity long ago lost its soul--and the state of Protestant denominations is a theological morality tale confirmed by dwindling attendance.
That was 1972. Forty years later, in 2012, liberal churches are not the only ones declining. It is true that progressive religious bodies started to decline in the 1960s. However, conservative denominations are now experiencing the same. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention, one of America's most conservative churches, has for a dozen years struggled with membership loss and overall erosion in programming, staffing, and budgets. Many smaller conservative denominations, such as the Missouri Synod Lutherans, are under pressure by loss. The Roman Catholic Church, a body that has moved in markedly conservative directions and of which Mr. Douthat is a member, is straining as members leave in droves. By 2008, one in ten Americans considered him- or herself a former Roman Catholic. On the surface, Catholic membership numbers seem steady. But this is a function of Catholic immigration from Latin America. If one factors out immigrants, American Catholicism matches the membership decline of any liberal Protestant denomination. Decline is not exclusive to the Episcopal Church, nor to liberal denominations--it is a reality facing the whole of American Christianity.
Arian was a heretic.Would you say then that Arianism was not a matter of doctrine and dogma?
Actually Arian heresy survived 40 years [liberalism is longer] - and it was becoming known in the east - and the many eastern Bishops knew it was wrong - very wrong - and held a council. [With Papal legates]According to Newman, even though Arianism was condemned by the Council of Nicaea, the belief persisted to the point of being held by the majority of bishops. Indeed, at one point in Church history, it looked as if Arianism was winning out, but--according to Newman--the faithful held tenaciously to the belief in the divinity of Christ until such time as the Nicaean teaching held sway again among the bishops.
Newman affirmed the inerrancy of the whole Church, but he also held that there can be times when the teaching authority is temporarily not functioning--or is suspended, as it were. He gave the example of Arianism. But in our study of Church history, we can also cite such examples as slavery, usury, the heliocentric theory, the teaching of Aristotelian propositions, religious liberty and Church and state issues.
In addition to "Consulting the Faithful on Matters of Doctrine," Newman also wrote, "On the Development of Doctrine," a concept which was restated by Vatican II and is contained in the Catechism.
Indeed, my own reading of the history of the Church demonstrates that, at any given time in its history, the Church is a "work in progress," as it always faces new challenges due to the "advance" of civilization and the increase in the pool of human knowledge.
That the Church can make the previously mentioned changes in its positions is not a criticism; it is a good thing, in my view. It is why Church Tradition is described as Living; it is an ongoing process.
American politics aside - which have no room in the Universal Church under the Teacher in Rome - the Church has one set of teachings. No room for heterodox ideas...as it was - is and will remain so til the day the Lord returns.
The Church is not opine to a democratic vote of what she teaches.
She never will.
Unless or until ppl get that into their heads in America where they think freedom of religion means free to change the Church - they put their souls on the mat and are wagering with their salvation.
Sorry - freedom of religion or wars for such a right [being undone by Obama] - still does not constitute any rights whatsoever to lead in heresy.
IF heresy was an acceptable form of practice - the Apostles wouldnt have warned against it - Christ wouldnt have promised against it - and the Church wouldnt have excommunicated hundreds for it prior to this generation.
Most of the list - of the changes ppl THINK they can make - are amusing. It wont happen, it cannot happen.
See, dogmatic teachings will never ever change. No matter what sheep want to wander away - the Lord isnt ever going to say 'Come back - we'll do it your way now. I see my error in Judgment on how I always wanted things.'
There will never be:
Female priests
Abortion acceptance
Euthanasia acceptance
Homosexual openness.
etc etc
Married or unmarried priests are a discipline. And so are a lot of other things someone listed in another thread - i didnt even feel like addressing.
Discerning dogma - doctrine and discipline is an easy task if at first we seek to discover them.
Nope. It is dogma so it cannot happen. So it will not happen.As my mother has often told me, "never" is a long time. I agree re: abortion. I almost certainly agree re: homosexual acceptance and euthanasia acceptance. However, I do not necessarily agree re: female priests. If there become a very severe shortage of priests in the future and allowing married men to become priests still fails to provide sufficient numbers, then the Church may well be forced to reconsider it's position on female priests. After all, how effective can the Church be as an institution if it does not have enough priests to serve it's members? Mind you, I am not predicting such a change, especially in our lifetime. However, who knows what the future holds if the current shortage of priests become a crisis?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?