Evolution or deviation

[Matt Black]

Catholics I understand believe that the Church's doctrine has unfolded over the centuries of Her existence; not quite a progressive revelation perhaps but more of an evolution and clarification of definition. Non-Catholic Christians charge however that these developments amount to a deviation from what was before. There are I believe instances to support the latter, where the Church's belief in, say the third century, has not matched that of the seventeenth century. Take, for example, chiliasm. This, under its name of premillenialism, is a hot button topic in fundamentalist circles. The Catholic Church today is not chiliast, I understand, but several of the ECFs appear to have been eg: Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and possibly Polycarp and Ignatius. A reaction set in under Origen and chiliasm was finished off by Augustine (although I think one of the councils of Constantinople condemned it also - perhaps someone can confirm that for me?). So, here is an example of a doctrine held by some early Catholics that is not held by Catholics today. So is today's belief a deviation from or evolution of that of Irenaeus and Justin?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Dave]

First, you need to understand that the early Church Fathers aren't the Magisterium of the Church. Secondly, doctrine was developing, and so there were things that were still up in the air at the time. As for Irenaeus et al supporting a premillenialist view, I don't know if they really did -- sometimes things like that are taken out of context to make it look like Church Fathers believed stuff that they really didn't believe. But even if they did, the Church had nevertheless not spoken authoritatively on the issue. Since then, however, the Church has done so.

[mulls]

[quote name='Dave' date='Feb 17 2005, 05:49 PM'] First, you need to understand that the early Church Fathers aren't the Magisterium of the Church. [/quote]
so why are they quoted here on this site over and over and over again to 'prove' points?




[quote]sometimes things like that are taken out of context to make it look like Church Fathers believed stuff that they really didn't believe.[/quote]


can i use that line next time somebody posted a ridiculously long this of what ecf's supposedly believed?

Edited February 17, 2005 by mulls

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='mulls' date='Feb 17 2005, 04:01 PM'] so why are they quoted here on this site over and over and over again to 'prove' points? [/quote]
They're quoted when someone attacks a doctrine stating that it was made up sometime in the Middle Ages. Just because an ECF wouldn't be considered Magisterium doesn't preclude him from being important. It's like how many great theologians now aren't clergymen. Since they aren't part of the magisterium, they do not have any teachings that are infallible. Also, the fact that many of these things were discussed and there are disputes only shows the need for dogma to be defined in a council.

[Brother Adam]

It all leads to faith.