tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post346839720848543018..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Concerning the Theory of Doctrinal DevelopmentFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75356092777707072092015-10-25T23:21:10.211-04:002015-10-25T23:21:10.211-04:00I am reminded that Vincent actually began is "...I am reminded that Vincent actually began is "canon" by saying: "Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it."<br />In other words, the whole point of the Vincentian canon is to establish the ancient and universal <i>interpretation</i> of scripture, not to add anything more.<br />Apart from Gnosticism, all the ancient heresies involved attempting to make a synthesis from the theses and antitheses of the Bible in matters which are ultimately beyond human understanding: such as the nature of God, or the incarnation, or sin, free will, and predestination. On these matters, a lot of loose talk was often permitted, until someone went too far, and there was backlash.<br />Thus, there are passages which can be read as portraying the equality of the Son with the Father, and others suggesting the subordination of the Son. Elaborating on this Biblical language was considered all very well, until Sabellius claimed that the Son was exactly the same as the Father. Immediately, the church as a whole recognized this as going too far, and they labelled it a heresy. Indeed, it because too many people regarded Sabellianism as "the real enemy" that Arianism flourished as long as it did. Even so, as soon Arius raised his opinion, it was seen to be an innovation, and roundly rejected. Only then was it felt necessary to find a term, such as <i>homoousios</i> to define the orthodox position. But the doctrine had always been there.Malcolm Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-65324379028317064122008-07-15T01:32:00.000-04:002008-07-15T01:32:00.000-04:00"Doctrinal development" means something very speci..."Doctrinal development" means something very specific with Newman. His theory rejects <I>quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.</I><BR/><BR/>It should, because it doesn't fit it. <BR/><BR/>Never has the Church claimed to teach a new revelation that slowly dawned on it after the time of the Apostles. Every major doctrine has been set forth as having come from the earliest time of the Church -until Newman, and, of course, a few Pentecostal preachers with new revelations.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87224707636420959122008-07-13T00:27:00.000-04:002008-07-13T00:27:00.000-04:00Thank you, Scott Carson, for a very fine explanati...Thank you, Scott Carson, for a very fine explanation of doctrinal development.Fr_Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869701021679422382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29617410752982494952008-07-12T00:19:00.000-04:002008-07-12T00:19:00.000-04:00The people who did not believe in what later came ...The people who did not believe in what later came to be called the Doctrine of the Trinity, were the Arians. They were not simply people here and there throughout the Church. They could not "prove" their interpretation, even though they could argue for it. Had Arius been able to prove it, the Council would have had a problem. The Arians were a problem and caused a huge reaction immediately. Why? Because they came up with something new and wrong.<BR/><BR/>The proof from scripture does not come from one or two phrases ("I and my Father are One.") but from the fact that the scriptures either teach the Trinity, or they are so totally self-contradictory that they are neither the word of God, nor the product of a rational mind. Assuming the writers were not contradicting themselves, which would have proved them irrational, we have only one solution that is consistently logical. That is, the Trinity.<BR/><BR/>Newman's history of Development of Doctrine is highly selective. Was it development, or clarification? It was clarification, and those clarifications were stated for the purpose of defending the teaching that had been believed always, everywhere, always and by all.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-8081412039301798882008-07-11T18:53:00.000-04:002008-07-11T18:53:00.000-04:00I am happy to agree that id quod credendum est mus...I am happy to agree that <I>id quod credendum est</I> must be demonstrated from scripture; we apparently disagree not on that, but on what that means. You may find my essays <A HREF="http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2006/12/just-what-is-principal-of-development.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, <A HREF="http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2006/12/back-to-for-me-source.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, and <A HREF="http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2006/12/real-and-notional-assent.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> of interest in this regard. I can't promise that anyone will find them interesting, let alone persuasive, but they set out rather nicely (though not very briefly) what most Catholics think about what it means to say that doctrine "develops" over time and what it means to "prove" something from the scriptures.<BR/><BR/>In regard to that last, I will make the following suggestion. Consider what it would mean to "prove" the doctrine, to which we all must assent, that the Father and the Son are "one in substance". I'm sure that there is plenty of scriptural "evidence", of one kind or another, for this doctrine, but things are not always so simple as running the family bible, opening it up to one's favorite passage and saying, "Right there, there's your <I>homoousia</I> for you, right there!"<BR/><BR/>True enough, in the Gospel of St. John Our Lord says clearly enough "I and the Father are one", but I'm sure the readership here is intelligent and alert enough to realize that philosophers and theologians have long been at odds over the very notion of what it means "to be one" (indeed, Aristotle wrote an entire book on the subject), and the philosophical/theological notion of what it means to be a substance is no less difficult. In short, one reason why the doctrine had to be articulated by a Council is the plain fact that not everybody believed it, and the folks who did not believe it thought that they, too, could prove their point of view from the scriptures. Unless some sort of central authority, such as a council, makes this sort of thing explicit, one may fairly say that it is <I>not</I>, in fact, explicitly stated in the scriptures, but must be derived therefrom by some means of logical deduction. This is what it means for a doctrine to develop in Newman's sense (contrary to what some interpreters of Newman seem to want to insist). On this account of doctrinal development, no <I>new</I> doctrines are added to the body of <I>de fide</I> teachings of the Church, that is to say, no teachings that are new in the sense that they do not follow logically from the deposit of the faith as we received it from the Apostles. (I hasten to add that Mike Liccione and I do not fully agree on this point; if you should happen to read the essays I link to above, you will find that I there link to some of his essays in which he disagrees rather strongly with my reading of Newman.)<BR/><BR/>That we all (Anglicans and Catholics) accept that Ecumenical Councils play this role (the articulation of what must be believed) seems clear enough, though we appear to disagree on what counts as this sort of "council". But I think the time has come to stop equivocating on the notion of "proving from the scriptures" this or that doctrine; there can be no doubt about the fact that some of the things that must be believed by all Christians have only been made explicit by conciliar statements, based on inferential interpretations of the scriptures. That these statements are intended to <I>exclude</I> competing interpretations originating with particular individuals or in particular communities also seems clear.Vitae Scrutatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12808120163472036743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-8724731828413907272008-07-08T21:58:00.000-04:002008-07-08T21:58:00.000-04:00I learned Sephardic Hebrew, and the instructor was...I learned Sephardic Hebrew, and the instructor was an Israeli. When I told a former chief Rabbi of Jerusalem (I think his name was David Rosen, or a name close to that) that I learned Sephardic, and stuck to it even when fellow seminarians assumed it was wrong, he said, "good for you."Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-85000344444788608612008-07-08T17:51:00.000-04:002008-07-08T17:51:00.000-04:00Thank you, Fr. Hart, that is precisely what I'm tr...Thank you, Fr. Hart, that is precisely what I'm trying to say. Without the definitions even the OT is not fully comprehended. With them, the original meaning becomes inescapable, and the reaction is to see exactly how it is that wht I knew all along really does express the text. There is development in precision of expression, but NOT development in the underlying truth.<BR/><BR/>You're right, my memory supplied the wrong word order. I knew better. However the spelling I used is the transliteration found in several scholarly texts I've consulted -- Hebrew Orthography, of couse, has no capital letters and originally had no expressed vowels. The final letter of bereshith is not the letter always rendered :T", but the one rendered either "T" or "TH", and given the pronunciation "S" in the Ashkenazi pronunciation.<BR/><BR/>I should have given it as "Bereshith bara elohim"<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-28904226377836617832008-07-08T17:44:00.000-04:002008-07-08T17:44:00.000-04:00Doubting Thomas wrote:I think the deal breaker is ...Doubting Thomas wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>I think the deal breaker is that that from the beginning, the Apostolic Church has proclaimed a somehow triune God in her baptismal formula (see Matthew 28 and Didache) and her "rule of faith" which, though varying in details of the specific words, always had the triadic structure.</I><BR/><BR/>From the beginning is exactly right. Arius came along with new, strange teaching that caused quite an uproar.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-49518756564425519212008-07-08T14:56:00.000-04:002008-07-08T14:56:00.000-04:00"Bara bereshith elohim..."Actually Ed, it is "B'Ra...<I>"Bara bereshith elohim..."</I><BR/><BR/>Actually Ed, it is "B'Rasheet bora Elohim." <BR/><BR/>The <I>one Elohim</I> of the ancient Hebrews is a mystery revealed more fully in the New Testament.<BR/><BR/>The problems with DD are numerous. Historically, the Church did not meet in Councils to define or pronounce dogma, but to defend what was received from the beginning. The result was clarification and teaching. The DD theory misconstrues this history as defining moments in progressive revelation. Very dangerous stuff. Not only is it wrong about the past, but scary in terms of future possibilities.<BR/><BR/>Arius was also too clever for his own good. What he really did was incorporate the Hellenistic concept of God (sometimes called Zeus or Jupiter) into Christianity; God who created a god- a kind of polytheism, but just enough different from older polytheism that he could fool himself.<BR/><BR/>It is relevant to this thread to point out a historical fact of modern times. When the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society reintroduced the Arian heresy for modern consumption, they found it necessary to produce their own deliberately mistranslated version of the Bible (<I>The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures</I>). The most significant fraud in that whole version is found in John chapter one, where they rewrote verse one to say "a god." <BR/><BR/>By the way, the Watchtower would love Newman's theory. It is exactly what they have been accusing us of all along.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-39169606251794834702008-07-08T14:48:00.000-04:002008-07-08T14:48:00.000-04:00Ed Pacht noted, "it simply doesn't happen that a p...Ed Pacht noted, "it simply doesn't happen that a person (singular) with a Bible in hand discovers this doctrine. Over and over again, quite intelligent and educated individuals and their followers have approached the Scripture and come up with false conclusions."<BR/><BR/>All too true. That is why it is the Church, which in the first place wrote the Scriptures under God's inspiration, that must give the authoritative interpretation of those Scriptures. <BR/><BR/>Certainly it is possible for a benighted individual to try to read a text separate and apart from the author's own understanding of that text. <BR/><BR/>To give an example of the futility of this self-absorbed approach, at least its futility in producing practical results, I would point to a secular instance that involved a notably complex text. This is essentially how Lyndon LaRouche tried to approach the U.S. Internal Revenue Code; as to the success of his results, so far as I've ever read, he's still in prison.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-30810937396358705162008-07-08T13:05:00.000-04:002008-07-08T13:05:00.000-04:00In the case of the Trinity, while the definition i...In the case of the Trinity, while the definition is not spelled out in Scriptures, I agree with Fr Hart that the doctrine can be proven and deduced from Scriptures. However, I also agree with Ed that others have come to Scriptures and have concluded it does not teach the Trinity. The result often times is that Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians throw proof texts at each other reminiscent of the situation during the Arian contraversy. I think the deal breaker is that that from the beginning, the Apostolic Church has proclaimed a somehow triune God in her baptismal formula (see Matthew 28 and Didache) and her "rule of faith" which, though varying in details of the specific words, always had the triadic structure. This triadic confession along with a firm commitment to monotheism thus provided the proper pattern for interpreting the Scriptures, so that when confronted from heresy on either side--Sabellianism and Arianism--the Church could correctly clarify what she had believed and prayed from the beginning, particularly when a linguistic apparatus became available--and agreed upon--for such technical clarifications (ie homoousious, one ousia and three hypostases, etc) needed to properly exclude error.<BR/><BR/>--Doubting ThomasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87485435684367969842008-07-08T10:58:00.000-04:002008-07-08T10:58:00.000-04:00Good teaching! I would insert, however, that, tho...Good teaching! <BR/><BR/>I would insert, however, that, though the Scriptures (both Testaments)defy understanding if the doctrine of the Trinity be not accepted, it simply doesn't happen that a person (singular) with a Bible in hand discovers this doctrine. Over and over again, quite intelligent and educated individuals and their followers have approached the Scripture and come up with false conclusions. It took generations of close study and discussion to come up with a formulation by which the many questions individual minds had raised could be answered and minds could be truly focused on what the Scriptures had always said.<BR/><BR/>Once the concept has been found, then it can be rather easily demonstrated to be the only possible meaning of the text. From the very first words of the Canon of Scripture, "Bara bereshith elohim...", "in the beginning God created...", with its peculiar mixture of singular and plural forms, to the complexities of the Apocalypse, and understanding of the Trinity is necessary and inevitable, but it needed to be defined, and so it was. Without such a formulation, it is difficult to come to an accurate understanding. Arius is an excellent example. A bright man had a bright idea. Those in tune with the Scriptures recognized it as error, but needed to formaulate a contrary expression which would be fully Scriptural, and so they did. Such development of doctrine as there may be is just that, the uncovering of what has always been there, always been believed, but has not heretofore been formulated.<BR/><BR/>The converse is that such a formulation, by being perfectly in accord with Scripture, exposes competing formulations for what they are: false.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-91161682355501884772008-07-08T07:44:00.000-04:002008-07-08T07:44:00.000-04:00I lack the theological and philosophical equipment...I lack the theological and philosophical equipment of Fr Hart, and have always felt a little inadequate in the face of Newmanesque attacks on the Vincentian canon. I was nevertheless able to recognise in such attacks a sense of being too clever for one's own good, and Fr Hart's mini-exposition here has done much to clarify matters and convince me I was right. Once again, thank you, Fr Hart.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-89030897390461369082008-07-08T00:05:00.000-04:002008-07-08T00:05:00.000-04:00Amen! Amen! Amen!Amen! Amen! Amen!Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.com