The Oath Against Modernism

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Your Avatar is out of date Papist :)

[Apotheoun]

Nope, sorry, I couldn't unless you're going to force me. 

 

I don't like the language of it.

 

 

Implies that atheists are willfully ignorant, which isn't true.  God CAN be known through light of reason and through witnessing creation, but God cannot be scientifically demonstrated. 

I think the Scholastic underpinnings of the "Oath" means that it is referring to metaphysics, and not science (i.e., in the modern sense of that word). After all, a Scholastic philosopher and theologian would say that the scientific method applies to the created order, and not to the order of "being as being."

[r2Dtoo]

idgi

 

 

 

 

Jeeze, Papist. You gotta stop making obscure references.. 

Mr Bill was brought down by this comment, so I euthanized him.

[Evangetholic]

I do not think the goal of the Oath is today development of doctrine.

 

Now on to error, I think Scripture and the Church, generally, until 5 minutes ago, historically understood most error to be at least in part willful. I tend to agree. Iexisted outside of the Church for something like five  years after my heart started whispering "But it's true just the same."

 

to deny

[Evangetholic]

to deny

 

typos are a curious thing

[Apotheoun]

"Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously."

 

The first sentence is a historical falsehood, but only works when interpreted in light of the second sentence.  Our faith does not contradict itself, but our understanding of it develops, so saying "exactly the same meaning" is untrue.  I doubt Peter understood the Hypostatic Union, that the Son was eternally begotten of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.  Our faith's meaning has grown, and thus has not remained exactly the same. 

Eastern Christians reject the idea that dogma develops, and in this sense we would agree with the "Oath" as quoted in the original post. Eastern Christians hold that the mysteries of faith are immutable truths delivered to the Church by the Lord to His Apostles, and from the Apostles to the Bishops and Holy Fathers, and there can be no alteration to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. In fact, the whole idea that the faith can change or develop, at least from an Eastern Christian perspective, would involve embracing the false idea that God did not fully reveal Himself in Christ, and that notion would never be acceptable to an Eastern Christian.

 

Now what - according to Eastern Christians - are the dogmatic decrees of the councils? The answer to that question is that they are held to be limited and apophatic linguistic expressions of the experiential mystery in question, and as such they are intended to form a fence around the mystery received in divine worship without trying to define the mystery. Moreover, this patristic approach to the mysteries of the faith refuses to reduce them to discursive axioms open to logical development; instead, seeing them as experiential encounters with God in right worship (ορθο δόξα); and of course the encounter with God experienced by the Apostles in worship is identical to the experience of God received today by the faithful during the liturgy. There can be no development, because God as experienced is always one and the same, and any change or development would involve corruption from the original incarnational experience of the Apostles, and the loss of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

 

Finally, as far as the hypostatic union is concerned, I would say that St. Peter (and the other Apostles) had exactly the same experience of that mystery as Christians today. In fact, it would be the height of hubris to assert that people living today know more - either experientially or intellectually - about God than the Apostles, who were personally chosen by Christ as the foundation stones of His Church.

[Evangetholic]

“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”--Pope Bl. Pio Nono

[Basilisa Marie]

Eastern Christians reject the idea that dogma develops, and in this sense we would agree with the "Oath" as quoted in the original post. Eastern Christians hold that the mysteries of faith are immutable truths delivered to the Church by the Lord to His Apostles, and from the Apostles to the Bishops and Holy Fathers, and there can be no alteration to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. In fact, the whole idea that the faith can change or develop, at least from an Eastern Christian perspective, would involve embracing the false idea that God did not fully reveal Himself in Christ, and that notion would never be acceptable to an Eastern Christian.

 

Now what - according to Eastern Christians - are the dogmatic decrees of the councils? The answer to that question is that they are held to be limited and apophatic linguistic expressions of the experiential mystery in question, and as such they are intended to form a fence around the mystery received in divine worship without trying to define the mystery. Moreover, this patristic approach to the mysteries of the faith refuses to reduce them to discursive axioms open to logical development; instead, seeing them as experiential encounters with God in right worship (ορθο δόξα); and of course the encounter with God experienced by the Apostles in worship is identical to the experience of God received today by the faithful during the liturgy. There can be no development, because God as experienced is always one and the same, and any change or development would involve corruption from the original incarnational experience of the Apostles, and the loss of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

 

Finally, as far as the hypostatic union is concerned, I would say that St. Peter (and the other Apostles) had exactly the same experience of that mystery as Christians today. In fact, it would be the height of hubris to assert that people living today know more - either experientially or intellectually - about God than the Apostles, who were personally chosen by Christ as the foundation stones of His Church.

 

 

Okay.  One of the things I really, really do like about Eastern Christianity is the idea of experiencing mystery. 

 

For my self as a Latin Westerner, it's hard to deny the very real influence that Hellenistic thought had on my "lung" of the Church. While Peter may have experienced the same mystery as we do in Christ, or in the Eucharist, there's no way he was thinking about it with the same nuances as those who came up with the explanation of the hypostatic union or transubstantiation. It seems to me that the deposit of faith is like the mustard seed planted in the ground.  The whole, huge tree of faith comes from that tiny seed, is explicated over time, but in a very real and true way is founded explicitly on that initial planting of the seed.  

 

I see what you're saying about dogma not developing - I don't deny that the Early Fathers knew that Jesus was fully present in the Eucharist. But the language of the Oath makes it seem like everything we know AS we know it today is exactly the same.  It seems to deny the truth that we had to come up with ways of explaining things, and that some explanations were accepted as being more true than others. It's like saying Peter had the concept of substance, accidents, and transubstantiation.  

[Apotheoun]

. . .  While Peter may have experienced the same mystery as we do in Christ, or in the Eucharist, there's no way he was thinking about it with the same nuances as those who came up with the explanation of the hypostatic union or transubstantiation. It seems to me that the deposit of faith is like the mustard seed planted in the ground.  The whole, huge tree of faith comes from that tiny seed, is explicated over time, but in a very real and true way is founded explicitly on that initial planting of the seed.

I agree that St. Peter may have had very different thoughts than a man living today, but we are not saved by our thoughts, but we are saved in spite of them. For the Eastern Fathers the faith is not an act of the intellect. In fact, quite the opposite, the faith requires the cessation of discursive activity (see St. Gregory of Nyssa's Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles and his Homilies on Ecclesiastes). Knowledge - as experience - is what saves us, and that experience of the divine in worship transcends our intellectual apprehension. St. Maximos the Confessor, in his treatise on Questions and Doubts, goes so far as to say that those in hell have an intellectual understanding of God, and that "knowing" God through intellectual formulations is not salvific; while those in heaven have a living experience of Him, for they have participated in the divine energies and become God by grace.  

 

Finally, as far as the mustard seed analogy is concerned, St. Vincent points out that the growth of the plant does not change its essence, but only its appearance, which means that the faith similarly does not grow, nor do later generations know more about the essence of the faith than earlier generations. In fact, if anything the early generations (in particular the Apostolic age) has an advantage over later generations because of their having lived day to day with the Lord during His earthly ministry.

[Nihil Obstat]

I agree that St. Peter may have had very different thoughts than a man living today, but we are not saved by our thoughts, but we are saved in spite of them. For the Eastern Fathers the faith is not an act of the intellect. In fact, quite the opposite, the faith requires the cessation of discursive activity (see St. Gregory of Nyssa's Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles and his Homilies on Ecclesiastes). Knowledge - as experience - is what saves us, and that experience of the divine in worship transcends our intellectual apprehension. St. Maximos the Confessor, in his treatise on Questions and Doubts, goes so far as to say that those in hell have an intellectual understanding of God, and that "knowing" God through intellectual formulations is not salvific; while those in heaven have a living experience of Him, for they have participated in the divine energies and become God by grace.  

 

Finally, as far as the mustard seed analogy is concerned, St. Vincent points out that the growth of the plant does not change its essence, but only its appearance, which means that the faith similarly does not grow, nor do later generations know more about the essence of the faith than earlier generations. In fact, if anything the early generations (in particular the Apostolic age) has an advantage over later generations because of their having lived day to day with the Lord during His earthly ministry.

I feel like the Latin and the Eastern Churches, or more specifically their members, tend to talk past each other when it comes to this subject in particular. The 'development of doctrine' issue, which we have done to death in the past, really is a non-issue within orthodox thought if we recognize that we are using different traditions to describe the same reality. Just my opinion at least. I disagree with nothing here.

[KnightofChrist]

Okay. One of the things I really, really do like about Eastern Christianity is the idea of experiencing mystery.

For my self as a Latin Westerner, it's hard to deny the very real influence that Hellenistic thought had on my "lung" of the Church. While Peter may have experienced the same mystery as we do in Christ, or in the Eucharist, there's no way he was thinking about it with the same nuances as those who came up with the explanation of the hypostatic union or transubstantiation. It seems to me that the deposit of faith is like the mustard seed planted in the ground. The whole, huge tree of faith comes from that tiny seed, is explicated over time, but in a very real and true way is founded explicitly on that initial planting of the seed.

I see what you're saying about dogma not developing - I don't deny that the Early Fathers knew that Jesus was fully present in the Eucharist. But the language of the Oath makes it seem like everything we know AS we know it today is exactly the same. It seems to deny the truth that we had to come up with ways of explaining things, and that some explanations were accepted as being more true than others. It's like saying Peter had the concept of substance, accidents, and transubstantiation.

The Oath is talking against changing or evolving the meaning of doctrine. The Oath doesn't contradict the very traditional belief that the Church is alive and has growth. Dogma and doctrine cannot evolve. When something evolves, what it was is changed into something new. Similar perhaps but not the same. Triangles cannot evolve into circles and still be triangles. The Oath is not against finding profound and deep ways to explain a doctrine or Dogma but changing the meaning, the definition of a doctrine or Dogma believing it's the same even though it isn't.

[Laudate_Dominum]

If you're gonna work Vegas in the '60s, you better know the score. Otherwise you're gonna look like a Clyde.

[KnightofChrist]

If you're gonna work Vegas in the '60s, you better know the score. Otherwise you're gonna look like a Clyde.