Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not think anyone seriously believes that. Even the most committed Kasper-ites. The closest you will ever find to that argument is among the likes of the eastern oikonomia argument, which was comprehensively addressed in that recent book Remaining In The Truth Of Christ. 

Thanks. Will have to study that.

I find the distinction between a "development" and a "novelty" to be kind of vapid.

The Assumption of Mary comes to mind. If I were a Protestant I would say "It is a novel teaching. Scripture doesn't teach it, and you don't see it in the earliest Church fathers." That seems to be pretty much the case if you look at it objectively. 

But I am Catholic so I have call it a "development" of a teaching that was always there from the beginning. 

That always seemed kind of specious to me as a matter of pure logic, but I guess I just need to study up on these issues further when I have time.

 

[Guest]

Quote

https://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/CONSC.TXT Deep within their conscience human persons discover a law which they have not laid upon themselves but which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and avoid evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that.

If it should come to an even more serious crisis in The Church, I would follow Pope Francis with hope and prayer that The Holy Spirit will sort things out in His Time, not mine - and His Way with His Result.  "Thou art Peter, The Rock, and on this Rock I will build My Church and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it".

Quote

Peace stated: "At least from my perspective, I feel like it is just better to follow the current pope and have faith that the Holy Spirit will eventually guide him and the other bishops into the truth."

My way as well.

At least half the time, due to complexity of discussion including language used, I have little notion of what is being said, if any notion at all.   Complexity and language used is not the problem.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

dfga

Edited December 2, 2016 by <3 PopeFrancis

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Thanks. Will have to study that.

I find the distinction between a "development" and a "novelty" to be kind of vapid.

The Assumption of Mary comes to mind. If I were a Protestant I would say "It is a novel teaching. Scripture doesn't teach it, and you don't see it in the earliest Church fathers." That seems to be pretty much the case if you look at it objectively. 

But I am Catholic so I have call it a "development" of a teaching that was always there from the beginning. 

That always seemed kind of specious to me as a matter of pure logic, but I guess I just need to study up on these issues further when I have time.

 

In my personal opinion the concept of doctrinal development has been pushed much too far in the post-VII zeitgeist. I do not think doctrine develops anywhere near to the extent we have been implying. I will dig up a quote tonight after work on the topic.

[Nihil Obstat]

This quote comes from Vatican I and is similar but not identical to the one I am searching for. The search is not going splendidly though.

 

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

[Nihil Obstat]

Found it. From the Oath Against Modernism.

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.

Refers to dogma of course, but the same is true of non dogmatic doctrine, as Vatican I and Pascendi teach.

[Guest]

The Gospel is the essence of simplicity thankfully.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Divine simplicity.

 

The Holy Scriptures

22. We have already touched upon the nature and origin of the Sacred Books. According to the principles of the Modernists they may be rightly described as a collection of experiences, not indeed of the kind that may come to anybody, but those extraordinary and striking ones which have happened in any religion. And this is precisely what they teach about our books of the Old and New Testament. But to suit their own theories they note with remarkable ingenuity that, although experience is something belonging to the present, still it may derive its material from the past and the future alike, inasmuch as the believer by memory lives the past over again after the manner of the present, and lives the future already by anticipation. This explains how it is that the historical and apocalyptical books are included among the Sacred Writings. God does indeed speak in these books - through the medium of the believer, but only, according to Modernistic theology, by vital immanence and permanence. Do we inquire concerning inspiration? Inspiration, they reply, is distinguished only by its vehemence from that impulse which stimulates the believer to reveal the faith that is in him by words or writing. It is something like what happens in poetical inspiration, of which it has been said: There is God in us, and when he stirreth he sets us afire. And it is precisely in this sense that God is said to be the origin of the inspiration of the Sacred Books. The Modernists affirm, too, that there is nothing in these books which is not inspired. In this respect some might be disposed to consider them as more orthodox than certain other moderns who somewhat restrict inspiration, as, for instance, in what have been put forward as tacit citations. But it is all mere juggling of words. For if we take the Bible, according to the tenets of agnosticism, to be a human work, made by men for men, but allowing the theologian to proclaim that it is divine by immanence, what room is there left in it for inspiration? General inspiration in the Modernist sense it is easy to find, but of inspiration in the Catholic sense there is not a trace.

[Peace]

You know you want to post the whole thing.

[Nihil Obstat]

25 minutes ago, Peace said:

You know you want to post the whole thing.

Of course I do. Pascendi, dude.

[Amppax]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Thanks. Will have to study that.

I find the distinction between a "development" and a "novelty" to be kind of vapid.

The Assumption of Mary comes to mind. If I were a Protestant I would say "It is a novel teaching. Scripture doesn't teach it, and you don't see it in the earliest Church fathers." That seems to be pretty much the case if you look at it objectively. 

But I am Catholic so I have call it a "development" of a teaching that was always there from the beginning. 

That always seemed kind of specious to me as a matter of pure logic, but I guess I just need to study up on these issues further when I have time.

 

It's only vapid if you assert development without showing it. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Divine simplicity.

 

The Holy Scriptures

22. We have already touched upon the nature and origin of the Sacred Books. According to the principles of the Modernists they may be rightly described as a collection of experiences, not indeed of the kind that may come to anybody, but those extraordinary and striking ones which have happened in any religion. And this is precisely what they teach about our books of the Old and New Testament. But to suit their own theories they note with remarkable ingenuity that, although experience is something belonging to the present, still it may derive its material from the past and the future alike, inasmuch as the believer by memory lives the past over again after the manner of the present, and lives the future already by anticipation. This explains how it is that the historical and apocalyptical books are included among the Sacred Writings. God does indeed speak in these books - through the medium of the believer, but only, according to Modernistic theology, by vital immanence and permanence. Do we inquire concerning inspiration? Inspiration, they reply, is distinguished only by its vehemence from that impulse which stimulates the believer to reveal the faith that is in him by words or writing. It is something like what happens in poetical inspiration, of which it has been said: There is God in us, and when he stirreth he sets us afire. And it is precisely in this sense that God is said to be the origin of the inspiration of the Sacred Books. The Modernists affirm, too, that there is nothing in these books which is not inspired. In this respect some might be disposed to consider them as more orthodox than certain other moderns who somewhat restrict inspiration, as, for instance, in what have been put forward as tacit citations. But it is all mere juggling of words. For if we take the Bible, according to the tenets of agnosticism, to be a human work, made by men for men, but allowing the theologian to proclaim that it is divine by immanence, what room is there left in it for inspiration? General inspiration in the Modernist sense it is easy to find, but of inspiration in the Catholic sense there is not a trace.

 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

The secret passion of Torquemada

Edited December 2, 2016 by <3 PopeFrancis

[Nihil Obstat]

1 minute ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

What is this?

Pascendi, bro.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

2 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Pascendi, bro.

Touche, sis.

2 hours ago, Amppax said:

"It is a novel teaching. Scripture doesn't teach it, and you don't see it in the earliest Church fathers."

I belong to Third Order Carmelite Carmelites have been in order since before The Birth of Christ in solemn honor and happy reverence to the HolyMother Who was to carry Our Lord.  The fact the order is here at all is strong witness itself.

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

 

2 hours ago, Amppax said:

But I am Catholic so I have call it a "development" of a teaching that was always there from the beginning. 

Blessed are they who do not see but believe.     

[Guest]

Onya Mr Google and CC  

Modernism: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=51

Pascendi Dominici Gregis (Doctrine of The Modernists) http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3146

[<3 PopeFrancis]

Interesting.  Thanks, @BarbaraTherese.

[Guest]

Modernism seems to be a problem today still in The Church and is termed "synthesis of all heresies". I needed to find out for myself what on earth it meant as a definition.  I am certainly not a modernist thankfully.  It is a very nasty term to direct at anyone, while in some instances it might be descriptive.    It is a huge word indeed and indicates heresy probably at its worst.

.......meanwhile, back at the ranch ............... the thread topic............

[Ash Wednesday]

My prayers are always with the Church, but right now I pray in particular for the four cardinals. The way they have been treated on this matter is very concerning to me. 

[Jack4]

11 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

In my personal opinion the concept of doctrinal development has been pushed much too far in the post-VII zeitgeist. I do not think doctrine develops anywhere near to the extent we have been implying. I will dig up a quote tonight after work on the topic.

 

10 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

This quote comes from Vatican I and is similar but not identical to the one I am searching for. The search is not going splendidly though.

 

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

 

10 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Found it. From the Oath Against Modernism.

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.

Refers to dogma of course, but the same is true of non dogmatic doctrine, as Vatican I and Pascendi teach.

 

You might also like Mirari vos: 

 

 ...united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies. Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings.