Change?

[psycmajor]

I have read that Catholic dogma has changed over hundreds of years. I don't mean to be rude, but why does that happen, if it's true? Just curious.

Thanks.

 

[nyj]

It's not true. Catholic dogma has not changed (as in, a particular decision has been reversed to something contradictory to the original declaration) at any time. If you had a specific example we could discuss it.

 

[jukesk9]

It doesn't. Never has, never will. Disciplines change. For example, used to everyone had to abstain from meat on Fridays. Now, in the United States, we only have to abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent.

Now, dogma has developed over the centuries. For example, since the very beginning of the Church, we have had the Eucharist. The Early Church believed it to be the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Well, sometime in the 13th Century, it was questioned on how the bread and wine became the Body and Blood. The answer given: by way of Transubstantiation, which was a new term. Notice the belief didn't change...it had been believed for 1200 years that the bread and wine became the actual physical Body and Blood of Jesus. But now we have an explanation for how it becomes the Body and Blood.

 

[psycmajor]

I guess what I meant was, 'Why does the Catholic church evolve?'

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by psycmajor
I guess what I meant was, 'Why does the Catholic church evolve?'

 

To quote G.K. Chesterton:

[T]here seems to be a queer ignorance, not only about the technical, but the natural meaning of the word Development. The critics of Catholic theology seem to suppose that it is not so much an evolution as an evasion; that it is best an adaptation. They fancy that its very success is the success of surrender. But that is not the natural meaning of the word Development. When we talk of a child being well-developed, we mean that he has grown bigger and stronger with his own strength; not that he is padded with borrowed pillows or walks on stilts to make him look taller. When we say that a puppy develops into a dog, we do not mean that his growth is a gradual compromise with a cat; we mean that he becomes more doggy and not less. Development is the expansion of all the possibilities and implications of a doctrine, as there is time to distinguish them and draw them out...

 

 

[psycmajor]

njy

Wow, I was looking at the info below your name...you actually LIVE in the Vatican? What's that like? How long? I hear it has a big wall around it and nice architecture.

Anyway. My interpretation of that quote is that through the evolution of the dogma of the Catholic church, Catholics become better Christians, even becoming closer to God? Am I right? If not, please correct me.

Also, how is it decided, as to what becomes dogma or how it is changed?

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by psycmajor
Wow, I was looking at the info below your name...you actually LIVE in the Vatican? What's that like? How long? I hear it has a big wall around it and nice architecture.

Heh, ummm... actually I live in Oklahoma City (the correct information is in my profile).  I just put Vatican City State there as a joke.  Didn't think anyone would take it seriously... to date two people have though.  Whoops!

Originally posted by psycmajor
Anyway. My interpretation of that quote is that through the evolution of the dogma of the Catholic church, Catholics become better Christians, even becoming closer to God? Am I right? If not, please correct me.

I would say that the Development of Dogma serves the primary purpose of helping Christians build and maintain a better relationship with God, so in that sense you are correct.  Of note, most dogmatic statements have arisen in response to heresies that have threatened the Church and her understanding of God. So it goes well beyond a personal understanding/relationship and more to a communal understanding of God.

 

[psycmajor]

Well, I knew it existed! I was just wondering how you got in there? I don't actually know a lot about it. Oh well.

I edited my last post and added this: Also, how is it decided, as to what becomes dogma or how it is changed?

Who decides what changes, the current pope?

Also, it sounds like what you said is that the Catholic church tries to explain things so that they cover all bases. But I'm not sure how they come up with those answers.

What is your opinion of "personal interpretation" as compared to a "communal understanding"? Is one more scriptural than the other, or more easy to understand, or what?

Sorry for all the questions; would just like to understand things from a Catholic point of view. BTW, I'm in a Protestant denomination.

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by psycmajor
Also, how is it decided, as to what becomes dogma or how it is changed?

First off, nothing is ever changed.  Things are expounded upon, but nothing decree'd by the Church is ever reversed (ie: takes on a meaning contrary to a previous declaration).  If things were changed, rather than our understanding deepened, this would counter Jesus Christ's proclamation that His Church would be free from error.

Second, doctrines are declared either by Papal mandate (ex cathedra) or by an Ecumenical Council.  An Ecumenical Council is where the bishops of the world gather together to define a teaching of the Church, similar to what the Pope would do when making a statement from the chair.  The Church teaches that in both instances, if the matter of the teaching is on faith or morals, either the Pope or the Bishops (or both) are protected with the charism of infallibility, bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of the Church.


It should be noted that the Orthodox Church also believes in infallibility, though not to the degree that the Catholic Church does.  The Orthodox Church holds the first seven Ecumenical Councils (through Nicae II in 787) were infallible in their teachings.  They also hold some of the early Patristic writings as infallible as well (something the Catholic Church does not do, though the Catholic Church does rely heavily on them as they represent part of the Deposit of Faith).

 

[VOW]

To Psyc:

Check out the "Frequently Asked Questions" thread at the top of the Catholic Forum. You'll find definitions of terms, explaining exactly WHAT "dogma" means, "discipline," and other teachings.

Basically, though, the Catholic Church is the guardian of the original Deposit of Faith. This consists of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. After the death of the last Apostle, neither Scripture nor Tradition has been added to nor taken away from. Through the centuries, the Church has CLARIFIED these teachings, but nothing has CHANGED.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Caedmon]

If nothing can change, then what can this imply?

Doctrine. Explanation of some aspect of the Faith. Not infallible, can be changed, evolved, condemned, abandoned.

 

[VOW]

To Joe:

The Original Deposit of Faith cannot change. DOCTRINE is not included in the Original Deposit of Faith. It's a matter of defining the terms. Many people use the word "Doctrine" interchangeably with Dogma, and according to the Catholic Church teachings, those are two different animals.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Wolseley]

There's a difference between Deposit, Dogma, and Doctrine.

Doctrine can change. Deposit and Dogma cannot.

 

[nyj]

Quoted by humblejoe
Doctrine. Explanation of some aspect of the Faith. Not infallible, can be changed, evolved, condemned, abandoned.

I'm not entirely sure where you got this definition, but I for one do not agree with it. The words dogma and doctrine are often used interchangeably, and while not all doctrine's have been declared to be "divinely inspired" (ie: dogma), once they become dogma, they continue to be referred to as doctrine.

For instance:

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire.

Now, unless I'm missing something, the doctrine of purgatory is a divinely revealed truth. The existance of purgatory is without question, it is dogma. Yet, the Catholic Church still refers to this as a doctrine.

We also see the following:

2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.

So what we have is the following:

All dogmatic statements are doctrinal statements.

Not all doctrinal statements are dogmatic statements.

NOTE: I think it's easy to see where most frustrations to ecumenism arise. Both sides not only use definitions in different ways, but the actual usage of definitions seem to remain a mystery to the opposite parties which does not prove beneficial for discussion.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by nyj
I'm not entirely sure where you got this definition, but I for one do not agree with it.

I got it from the Catholicism FAQ.

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by humblejoe
I got it from the Catholicism FAQ.

Like I said, I do not agree with it. It is overly simplistic. See my explanation above.