Progressive revelation

[Matt Black]

What is the Catholic understanding of this, with particular reference to Tradition?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[cmotherofpirl]

Revelation ended with the death of St John the Apostle.

[Matt Black]

If revelation ended with the death of John, what about the Rosary, the adoration of the Virgin Mary, purgatory and other teachings of Tradition?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[cmotherofpirl]

Purgatory is in the bible and tradition, we don't adore Mary, and the Rosary is a gospel based prayer. Tradition is all the things taught by the Apostles not written in scripture. It is older than the scripture writings.

Edited April 4, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[Brother Adam]

Matt,

Please read Dei Verbum. It is short and should explain what you are looking for on Revelation.

Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Private revelation has continued to some extent, but is not univerally accepted by the Church. Revelation is not ongoing, though some in the Church will try to teach you this.

As far as purgatory and such, doctrine does develop. It has always been believed, but new terms, names, theories, and ideas develop out of the councils. The first Apostles would have not had the understanding of the Trinity that St. Aquinas gave us.

[Matt Black]

OK my apologies - I am not clued up on terminology. Let me rephrase the OP question then: to what extent does doctrine develop?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Circle_Master]

Is not the immaculate conception an accepted revelation from ex cathedra speaking?

[Brother Adam]

Let's take the Trinity as a for instance.

In the Apostles time they would have had a basic knowledge that there was only one God but three divine persons. However, they did not know how to explain it. Many famous examples came to be, such as the three leaf clover. At times these examples were heretical (such as the three leaf clover) because they did not adequately explain the nature of the Trinity. Over time, the doctrine of the Trinity develops.

If a doctrine is not challenged by any group or person (Such as Arius or Pelegius) then the Church does not call a council to formally define the doctrine. When it is called into question (such as the nature of the divinity of Christ with Arius) then the Church formally defines the doctrine. The Church has always believed in the divinity of Christ, but it is not formally defined until the council of Nicea because at this time the heresy of Arianism is calling the doctrine into question.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Apr 4 2005, 12:04 PM'] Is not the immaculate conception an accepted revelation from ex cathedra speaking? [/quote]
The immaculate conception is not private revelation. It has always been believed.

[Brother Adam]

And the rosary on the other hand is a private revelation. No one is required to believe in or pray the rosary.

[Matt Black]

Could it not be said then that Luther was developing doctrine that was already contained within Scripture?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 4 2005, 12:07 PM'] The immaculate conception is not private revelation. It has always been believed. [/quote]
Where are you sourcing this from? Last time I debated on here all catholics were in agreement that this was an ex cathedra speaking. There also is no evidence in the early church [i]anywhere[/i] of the immaculate conception existing.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='Apr 4 2005, 09:45 AM'] Could it not be said then that Luther was developing doctrine that was already contained within Scripture?

Yours in Christ

Matt [/quote]
No, Luther's views are not a development of doctrine properly understood, nor would he have claimed that in reference to his own teaching. Moreover, it is a doctrine of the faith that the sole authentic interpreter of divine revelation (scripture and tradition) is the living Magisterium of the Church, i.e., the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, understood diachronically, and not merely synchronically.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Apr 4 2005, 09:45 AM'] Where are you sourcing this from? Last time I debated on here all catholics were in agreement that this was an ex cathedra speaking. There also is no evidence in the early church [i]anywhere[/i] of the immaculate conception existing. [/quote]
The belief that Mary is conceived in a state of grace is implicitly contained within scripture and tradition; and so it is not a "new" revelation, nor is it a "new" doctrine. Thus, Blessed Pope Pius IX's Apostolic Constitution [u]Ineffabilis Deus[/u] was not teaching something new or novel; instead, the teaching in that decree is simply the explication of a belief already implicitly held by the Church.

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Apr 4 2005, 01:11 PM'] The belief that Mary is conceived in a state of grace is implicitly contained within scripture and tradition; and so it is not a "new" revelation, nor is it a "new" doctrine. [/quote]
You are saying that the [b]conception[/b] of Mary is implicitly declared in [b]scripture[/b] and in [b]tradition[/b]. Please provide the implicit statements.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Apr 4 2005, 10:13 AM'] You are saying that the [b]conception[/b] of Mary is implicitly declared in [b]scripture[/b] and in [b]tradition[/b].  Please provide the implicit statements. [/quote]
The protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15 is the prediction of Mary's conception, and that text indicates that there will be complete enmity between the Mother of the Redeemer and the serpent. Thus, she will not be under his dominion.

As far as Tradition is concerned, because the Holy Theotokos is called the Panagia (all holy) it follows that she cannot be subject to the Devil or his reign. This belief is shared by the Latin Church, the Byzantine Church, and all the other Eastern Churches.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Apr 4 2005, 01:05 PM'] No, Luther's views are not a development of doctrine properly understood, nor would he have claimed that in reference to his own teaching.  Moreover, it is a doctrine of the faith that the sole authentic interpreter of divine revelation (scripture and tradition) is the living Magisterium of the Church, i.e., the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, understood diachronically, and not merely synchronically. [/quote]
And as such Luther invented new doctrine that the Church has never taught nor believed. The idea that human beings are 'snow covered dung heaps' a common mental image based on his theology that man is not only stained by original sin but is by nature evil and depraved is found no where in Church teaching for 1500 years, most especially not among the Apostles themselves.

Doctrine can indeed develop, but it cannot change.

You can say:

We believe there is one God.

To

We believe there is one God in three persons.

To

We call this doctrine the Trinity.


You cannot say:

A man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

To

We believe in salvation by faith alone.

Edited April 4, 2005 by Brother Adam

[Circle_Master]

Two things you need to do then,

1) Provide implicit Scripture still as Genesis 3:15 does speak of enmity, but it is between her and the serpent, and also between her SEED and the serpent. Thus it cannot mean 'sinlessness' as the immaculate conception defines it. Or else seed as a collective - referring to the total people of faith through the ages would have also had immaculate conceptions.

2) Find your earliest support for the 'Holy Theotokos' being called the Panagia. Saying it is shared in the 3 churches gives it a 11th century date at least. Not very early.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Apr 4 2005, 10:38 AM']1) Provide implicit Scripture still as Genesis 3:15 does speak of enmity, but it is between her and the serpent, and also between her SEED and the serpent.  Thus it cannot mean 'sinlessness' as the immaculate conception defines it.  Or else seed as a collective - referring to the total people of faith through the ages would have also had immaculate conceptions.[/quote]
Yes, the enmity is between the [i]woman[/i] (i.e., Mary) and her [i]seed[/i] (i.e., Christ), and the serpent and his seed, and so it is not just between her seed and the serpent as Protestants erroneously hold. As far as her seed being collective is concerned, once again the Catholic position holds that the seed referred to in Genesis 3:15 is Christ, i.e., the whole Christ, and that means that it is Christ and His Church that are in opposition to Satan. But Christ, both the Head and the Body, are not at enmity with the serpent in the same way, for the Head is the source of the enmity, while the Body only participates in Christ's enmity. Now as far as Mary is concerned, she stands with Christ in a special relationship at the focal point of salvation history, for she begins the redemption by her fiat, and in doing so she effaces the disobedience of the first woman. All of this is a part of the Tradition of the Church, something which Protestants rejected nearly 500 years ago, and so of course I do not expect you to understand this, nor do I expect you to believe it. A man can only make an act of faith in all that God has revealed, after first receiving and then assenting to the gift of grace given to him by Christ the Lord.

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Apr 4 2005, 10:38 AM']2) Find your earliest support for the 'Holy Theotokos' being called the Panagia.  Saying it is shared in the 3 churches gives it a 11th century date at least.  Not very early.[/quote]
The earliest recorded use of the word Theotokos in reference to Mary is from Origen's commentary on Romans, which was written in the early 200s A.D. But it is important to remember that the Gospel of Luke, in recounting the visit of the Holy Theotokos with St. Elizabeth, calls Mary, the "Mother of my Lord," and so the title is implicitly contained within the Gospel of Luke itself. Moreover, the doctrine of the Incarnation of the eternal Word requires the use of this term as a Christological title, because Mary is the Mother of God made man as is clear from John's Gospel (cf. John 1:14). Thus, to deny the title Theotokos to the Blessed Virgin involves the heresy of Nestorianism. Now as far as the title Panagia ([i]all holy[/i]) is concerned, it is connected to the fact that Mary is "full of grace" (cf. Luke 1:28; Greek: [i]kecaritomene[/i]), and the title is used by St. Ephraim and other Eastern Fathers, along with its use in the Eastern liturgies of St. James, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Basil, in order to emphasize both that Mary is full of grace (i.e., that she is filled with the uncreated divine energies), while also highlighting the truth that Mary is the New Eve.

[Donna]

The Douay Translation of the Bible, also says "ipsa"...[i]she[/i] will crush. The Woman will crush the head of the serpent.

But at any rate, the OT is filled with Our Lady, as it were, and her immaculate-ness; the Canticle of Canticles and etc;.