Doctrinal Development

[Awake]

Doctrinal development has always confused me. It seems that many times, God reveals one thing, and then many years later he reveals a sort of "revised" truth that comes close to be contradictory. Here are some examples:



-God commanded genocide in the OT..... but many years later, the CC says one is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

-God commanded an eye for an eye.... but many years later, Jesus says not to resist an evildoer.

-The Church declares one must be a member of the CC to be saved.... but many years later, the Church says that one can actually be considered a member of the CC if they seek God with a sincere heart.

-Jesus declares that one who gets divorced and remarried is committing adultery.... but many years later the Church finds a loophole and says one can actually get an annulment if it is found out that their marriage wasn't valid to being with.

-The Church says that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father.... but years later the Church says the Holy Spirit actually proceeds from the Father and the Son.

-The Church says that the Magisterium is infallible.... but years later the Church says that the Pope, too, is also infallible himself when speaking Ex Cathedra.



I know that the common response is that the Church doesn't change its teaches, but simply clarifies them. (Of course Chesterton says the Church changes in the way that a boy changes into a man, not the way a boy changes into a dog).

So I'm wondering, why does God often reveal half-truths? Why not just reveal it right to begin with so there isn't so much confusion and controversy? People have died over of some things like the filoque. It seems like ordering a friend to never step foot in the city of Paris, but then 20 years later clarifying that you meant the city of Paris in Texas, (not France).

Also, how do we know that the current teachings of the Church won't further change (or develop)? For instance, isn't it possible that some time down the road, the Church could clarify that birth control is only considered immoral if it causes an abortion?

[Br. Rich SFO]

Originally Posted by Awake

Doctrinal development has always confused me. It seems that many times, God reveals one thing, and then many years later he reveals a sort of "revised" truth that comes close to be contradictory. Here are some examples:



-God commanded genocide in the OT..... but many years later, the CC says one is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

-God commanded an eye for an eye.... but many years later, Jesus says not to resist an evildoer.

-The Church declares one must be a member of the CC to be saved.... but many years later, the Church says that one can actually be considered a member of the CC if they seek God with a sincere heart.

-Jesus declares that one who gets divorced and remarried is committing adultery.... but many years later the Church finds a loophole and says one can actually get an annulment if it is found out that their marriage wasn't valid to being with.

-The Church says that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father.... but years later the Church says the Holy Spirit actually proceeds from the Father and the Son.

-The Church says that the Magisterium is infallible.... but years later the Church says that the Pope, too, is also infallible himself when speaking Ex Cathedra.



I know that the common response is that the Church doesn't change its teaches, but simply clarifies them. (Of course Chesterton says the Church changes in the way that a boy changes into a man, not the way a boy changes into a dog).

So I'm wondering, why does God often reveal half-truths? Why not just reveal it right to begin with so there isn't so much confusion and controversy? People have died over of some things like the filoque. It seems like ordering a friend to never step foot in the city of Paris, but then 20 years later clarifying that you meant the city of Paris in Texas, (not France).

Also, how do we know that the current teachings of the Church won't further change (or develop)? For instance, isn't it possible that some time down the road, the Church could clarify that birth control is only considered immoral if it causes an abortion?

I'll just pick a few:

-God commanded an eye for an eye.... but many years later, Jesus says not to resist an evildoer.

This means that one must not respond with a force greater than that which was used against you, It does not say that one must respond with a equal or greater force.

-The Church declares one must be a member of the CC to be saved.... but many years later, the Church says that one can actually be considered a member of the CC if they seek God with a sincere heart.

The Church has never said that a person must be a member of the visible Catholic Church to be saved. But that one must in some way be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ- The Church.

-Jesus declares that one who gets divorced and remarried is committing adultery.... but many years later the Church finds a loophole and says one can actually get an annulment if it is found out that their marriage wasn't valid to being with.

How can a person commit adultery if they have never been validly Married before?

-The Church says that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father.... but years later the Church says the Holy Spirit actually proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Chruch has never said that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father.

-The Church says that the Magisterium is infallible.... but years later the Church says that the Pope, too, is also infallible himself when speaking Ex Cathedra.

Stating that the Pope is infallible when speaking on matters of Faith and Morals on a matter binding on the whole Christan faithful. Does not negate the fact the the teaching authority of the Church is infallible on matters of Faith and Morals is infallible. Unless one expects the Pope to contradict the Magisterium, which can never happen.

[Awake]

This is what I'm trying to say...

The following from Pope Boniface VIII papal bull Unam Sanctam:

We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

I think most people would read this and understand him to be referring to being a member of the visible CC as a necessity for salvation. It wasn't until many years later that the Church had to clarify by saying "Well, this is true... BUT... there's more to the story. It's not as simple as it sounds."

So why just reveal a partial truth to begin with? Doesn't it come across as misleading?

[GJx86]

-God commanded genocide in the OT..... but many years later, the CC says one is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

-God commanded an eye for an eye.... but many years later, Jesus says not to resist an evildoer.

We also know that God's relationship with His people evolved over time as they became more sophisticated socially and less hard of heart. Jimmy Akin talks about the former aspect of human development as it relates to war in the Old Testament--God was working with blunt instruments who only understood warfare in the tribal sense, not in the modern judicial sense of trying and condemning individuals--and the latter is discussed in Scripture itself, when Jesus points out that the Mosaic Law held what it did about divorce because the Israelites were hard of heart, not because God changed his mind about what was and wasn't moral.

-Jesus declares that one who gets divorced and remarried is committing adultery.... but many years later the Church finds a loophole and says one can actually get an annulment if it is found out that their marriage wasn't valid to being with.

Br. Rich is correct: An annulment declares that no marriage ever existed, and so someone who receives a declaration of nullity cannot be said to be "remarried."

-The Church says that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father.... but years later the Church says the Holy Spirit actually proceeds from the Father and the Son.

-The Church says that the Magisterium is infallible.... but years later the Church says that the Pope, too, is also infallible himself when speaking Ex Cathedra.

-The Church declares one must be a member of the CC to be saved.... but many years later, the Church says that one can actually be considered a member of the CC if they seek God with a sincere heart.

None of these are examples of contradictions.

In each case, you have three statements. The first is assumed to be true. The other two contradict each other, but not the first statement. It is not certain which of the latter two statements is true. The Church eventually declares that one is true and the other is false, granting us certainty, but granting us that certainty does not mean that the original statement is contradicted.

The procession of the Holy Spirit: If the Church had taught that the Holy Spirit proceeded only from the Father, then this would be a contradiction. But the Church hasn't taught that, so there is no contradiction. Saying "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" does not preclude me from saying "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son."

A similar argument can be made for the other two points you've raised. "The Magisterium alone is infallible" precludes "The Pope is infallible"; "The Magisterium is infallible" does not. "Only those who profess Catholicism are saved" precludes "Those who do not profess Catholicism can be saved"; "Only those who are in the Church can be saved" does not.

Also, how do we know that the current teachings of the Church won't further change (or develop)? For instance, isn't it possible that some time down the road, the Church could clarify that birth control is only considered immoral if it causes an abortion?

This case is different because you are suggesting a contradiction.

The Church has declared that contraception is intrinsically immoral unless the law of double effect applies. If you add additional exceptions to that statement by saying, "Contraception is intrinsically immoral unless it isn't abortifacient or unless the law of double effect applies," you are contradicting the original statement: Things that you declared to be true before ("non-abortifacient contraception is immoral") are now false "non-abortifacient contraception is moral.")

Sorry for the pedantry. I wanted to make sure I was being clear. Hope that helps.

EDIT:

So why just reveal a partial truth to begin with? Doesn't it come across as misleading?

It only seems misleading after the fact, doesn't it? Would this statement seem "misleading" if the full range of possible truths were still open to us?

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Awake

So I'm wondering, why does God often reveal half-truths? Why not just reveal it right to begin with so there isn't so much confusion and controversy? People have died over of some things like the filoque. It seems like ordering a friend to never step foot in the city of Paris, but then 20 years later clarifying that you meant the city of Paris in Texas, (not France).

Oi. Any question that begins "why does God..." is almost certain to be a really difficult one. In this case, there's no official answer. I guess I'm too pathetically grateful to God for not letting us fall into falsehood to complain too much.

And, indeed, you might find your answer in human fallibility. The Holy Spirit speaks throught the Magisterium, but the bishops who make up the Magisterium are humans. In fact, they are humans with very small minds and very hard hearts. Some have been exceptionally so. So it may very well be that the Lord is trying to reveal the fullness of His truth through the Church, but the people who make up the Church simply aren't ready to hear the whole thing yet. So it is only over time that hearts soften and the "full truth" on issues like salvation and birth control come to be understood by humans. No doubt the Lord has enough trouble just trying to keep His Church from teaching explicit error. :P

Also, how do we know that the current teachings of the Church won't further change (or develop)? For instance, isn't it possible that some time down the road, the Church could clarify that birth control is only considered immoral if it causes an abortion?

The Church has explicitly stated in various infallible doctrines that all artificial forms of birth control that deliberately thwart the natural reproductive process in a sex act are anathema. There's really very little way to develop that sentence to find an exception. I mean... yes, it's theoretically possible that one day a new understanding will emerge that would shock and amaze Catholics today, but I cannot envision how that could possibly happen. I strongly doubt that it is, in fact, possible.

Hope that was helpful. A lot of that was just my musing, not Church teaching, but I marked that bit explicitly.

[neophyte]

Originally Posted by Awake

Doctrinal development has always confused me. It seems that many times, God reveals one thing, and then many years later he reveals a sort of "revised" truth that comes close to be contradictory...

"Comes close" - so then they aren't actually contradictory, are they?

Originally Posted by Awake

-God commanded an eye for an eye.... but many years later, Jesus says not to resist an evildoer.

Yep, you're right. Those aren't contradictory. The first means "let punishment fit the crime". The second does not mean "let the punishment far exceed the crime"

Originally Posted by Awake

-The Church declares one must be a member of the CC to be saved.... but many years later, the Church says that one can actually be considered a member of the CC if they seek God with a sincere heart.

Again, no contradiction. The second more fully defines the terms used in the first.

Originally Posted by Awake

-Jesus declares that one who gets divorced and remarried is committing adultery.... but many years later the Church finds a loophole and says one can actually get an annulment if it is found out that their marriage wasn't valid to being with.

"Loophole"? How can it be a loophole if it turns out that there was no marriage in the first place? By definition, there can be no divorce if there's no marriage to start with.

Originally Posted by Awake

-The Church says that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father.... but years later the Church says the Holy Spirit actually proceeds from the Father and the Son.

If I tell you that Ft. Lauderdale is north of Miami, and then later I tell you that it's north of Miami and south of Palm Beach, have I contradicted myself?

Originally Posted by Awake

-The Church says that the Magisterium is infallible.... but years later the Church says that the Pope, too, is also infallible himself when speaking Ex Cathedra.

Originally Posted by Awake

...So I'm wondering, why does God often reveal half-truths?...

I don't agree that one automatically tells a half-truth merely because the one being told can't fully understand it. Human beings simply can't absorb information that quickly. There's lots of stuff that I leanred in engineering school (for example) that I didn't understand then as fully as I do now.

[neophyte]

Originally Posted by Awake

This is what I'm trying to say...

The following from Pope Boniface VIII papal bull Unam Sanctam:

I think most people would read this and understand him to be referring to being a member of the visible CC as a necessity for salvation. It wasn't until many years later that the Church had to clarify by saying "Well, this is true... BUT... there's more to the story. It's not as simple as it sounds."

So why just reveal a partial truth to begin with? Doesn't it come across as misleading?

Therre are a lot of ways that folks can misunderstand a statement, and it's not possible to qualify teachings in advance so that every possible misunderstanding is covered. It's a lot more effective to wait until one becomes an issue.

In this case, I think you'd agree that one cannot be saved apart from Christ, and that if one is in Christ then one is by definition a part of His Body. If one is a part of His Body then one is by definition subject to its authority. So then it's certainly true that all Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are subject to the Holy Father. They might not recognise that fact, but that's a different matter.

[mlchance]

Originally Posted by Awake

So I'm wondering, why does God often reveal half-truths?

He doesn't. A half-truth is intended to deceive, not enlighten.

Originally Posted by Awake

Why not just reveal it right to begin with so there isn't so much confusion and controversy?

For much the same reason you don't try to teach a Kindergartener about gerunds and split infinitives.

Originally Posted by Awake

For instance, isn't it possible that some time down the road, the Church could clarify that birth control is only considered immoral if it causes an abortion?

Since that would clearly contradict the consistent teaching of the Church, no, it isn't possible.

-- Mark L. Chance.

[Awake]

Again, I never said these statements are contradictory. They are half-truths, which almost seem contradictory, but often seem misleading.

Originally Posted by neophyte

Therre are a lot of ways that folks can misunderstand a statement, and it's not possible to qualify teachings in advance so that every possible misunderstanding is covered. It's a lot more effective to wait until one becomes an issue.

In this case, I think you'd agree that one cannot be saved apart from Christ, and that if one is in Christ then one is by definition a part of His Body. If one is a part of His Body then one is by definition subject to its authority. So then it's certainly true that all Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are subject to the Holy Father. They might not recognise that fact, but that's a different matter.

But this was an issue. Countless people died because Catholics were told that being subject to the Roman Pontiff was necessary for salvation. Why was it not revealed from the get-go that one could actually be considered subject the Roman Pontiff when not being subject to the visible CC?

[Awake]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Oi. Any question that begins "why does God..." is almost certain to be a really difficult one. In this case, there's no official answer. I guess I'm too pathetically grateful to God for not letting us fall into falsehood to complain too much.

And, indeed, you might find your answer in human fallibility. The Holy Spirit speaks throught the Magisterium, but the bishops who make up the Magisterium are humans. In fact, they are humans with very small minds and very hard hearts. Some have been exceptionally so. So it may very well be that the Lord is trying to reveal the fullness of His truth through the Church, but the people who make up the Church simply aren't ready to hear the whole thing yet. So it is only over time that hearts soften and the "full truth" on issues like salvation and birth control come to be understood by humans. No doubt the Lord has enough trouble just trying to keep His Church from teaching explicit error. :P

This is an interesting take on the issue. If this were true, though, it would make me wonder how trustworthy our current understanding of Catholic theology/philosophy really is.

The Church has explicitly stated in various infallible doctrines that all artificial forms of birth control that deliberately thwart the natural reproductive process in a sex act are anathema. There's really very little way to develop that sentence to find an exception. I mean... yes, it's theoretically possible that one day a new understanding will emerge that would shock and amaze Catholics today, but I cannot envision how that could possibly happen. I strongly doubt that it is, in fact, possible.

Hope that was helpful. A lot of that was just my musing, not Church teaching, but I marked that bit explicitly.

But that's the thing, the Church has explicitly stated that one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation. Later, using clever wordplay, the Church was able to do a 180 and completely change the meaning of the phrase Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. It wouldn't be too difficult for the Church to do the same with any other issues as well, such as papal infallibility and birth control.

[FCEGM]

Originally Posted by Awake

This is what I'm trying to say...

The following from Pope Boniface VIII papal bull Unam Sanctam:

Quote:
We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

I think most people would read this and understand him to be referring to being a member of the visible CC as a necessity for salvation. It wasn't until many years later that the Church had to clarify by saying "Well, this is true... BUT... there's more to the story. It's not as simple as it sounds."

So why just reveal a partial truth to begin with? Doesn't it come across as misleading?

This sort of apparent contradiction you are seeing can easily be brought up concerning Scripture itself in many examples ("The Father is greater than I, e.g,). The non-theologian also sees it in ecclesiastical pronouncements and different Fathers, and you give this example of the necessity of the Church for salvation. The difference, of course, is a development in understanding how the Church is necessary for salvation. In the papal (and/or patristic) statements of earlier centuries what was the context and the truth of those statements? What, if not that the visible Church is necessary for salvation? And this is still true today and will not change. The difference between the papal statements of earlier ages and the Catechism of statements of our more recent popes in our time is in applying this revealed Truth on the necessity of the Church for salvation regarding those not in the visible Church.

So, what you are overlooking is the historical context of "Unam Sanctum" in your assertion of an apparent contradiction with Vatican Council II (1965). There is no contradition, apparent or otherwise. Pope Boniface's teaching came before the Protestant reformation, when all Christians (both Eastern and Western) were nominally Catholic. Vatican II, however, is speaking after 400 years of Christian heterodoxy, with whole generations born outside of the Catholic Tradition. Thus, Vatican II was able to address what the others could not: the phenomenon of “invincible ignorance", i.e., if someone is outside of the Catholic communion through no fault of their own, then they cannot be accused of schism. Catholic morality has always taught: “If there is no knowledge, then there is no responsibility; if there is no responsibility, then there can be no sin.” Thus, "Unam Sanctum" does not apply to someone who does not know any better. It never did.

Note that the Catechism's text keeps an essential element of the earlier teaching: membership in the visible Church is necessary for salvation, because the Church is a necessary instrument by God's choice in salvation (this is true also for Mary and with similar causality involved in salvation).

So, yes, "extra ecclesia nulla salus" is still a part of official Catholic doctrine and there is nothing contradictory in the Catechism to what earlier popes have said. You should also look at John Paul II's encyclical Redemptoris Missio. That, with the Catechism, shows that the visible Church is still necessary for salvation, but that since it is obviously not the fault of many millions that they have not adequately been evangelized they can not be blamed for culpable ignorance (but inculpable ignorance) and that since God gives sufficient grace to be saved to all, all have the chance to be saved through sufficient grace which is mysteriously IN CHRIST, therefore in the Church in some way.

[neophyte]

Originally Posted by Awake

...But this was an issue. Countless people died because Catholics were told that being subject to the Roman Pontiff was necessary for salvation....

I'm not aware of anyone dying for exactly that reason. But, having been told it by the recognised teaching authority of the church, they were bound to accept it.

Originally Posted by Awake

...Why was it not revealed from the get-go that one could actually be considered subject the Roman Pontiff when not being subject to the visible CC?

That's not really how I'd phrase the question - it looks to me like you're still not getting my point. But laying that aside: because it wasn't an issue from the get-go. There was only one Christian denomination, and no one was asking the question.

[Randy Carson]

Originally Posted by Awake

This is what I'm trying to say...

The following from Pope Boniface VIII papal bull Unam Sanctam:



I think most people would read this and understand him to be referring to being a member of the visible CC as a necessity for salvation. It wasn't until many years later that the Church had to clarify by saying "Well, this is true... BUT... there's more to the story. It's not as simple as it sounds."

So why just reveal a partial truth to begin with? Doesn't it come across as misleading?

This Bull was discussed at length here:

The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

[Randy Carson]

Originally Posted by Awake

This is what I'm trying to say...

The following from Pope Boniface VIII papal bull Unam Sanctam:



I think most people would read this and understand him to be referring to being a member of the visible CC as a necessity for salvation. It wasn't until many years later that the Church had to clarify by saying "Well, this is true... BUT... there's more to the story. It's not as simple as it sounds."

So why just reveal a partial truth to begin with? Doesn't it come across as misleading?

Hmmm...how is doctrinal development different that the development of understanding in any field?

First, we realized that everything is composed of atoms. Then protons, electrons and neutrons were discovered. Next came quarks and dark matter, etc. You get the idea.

I think theologians defined the big truth first, and then they started working on the the "what if" details.

Mr. Akin's article is a must read for you.