Jmj

Good morning, folks.
I was sorry to see that David Bowerman had stated the following at the bottom of the thread he started (Is Church Doctrine Evolving Again?): "I think it's time to leave this topic -- I doubt more can be learned at this point." The reason I was sorry about this is the fact that I had not had the opportunity to make a substantive post on that thread. I wanted to make one, but I knew that it would be a long one, and I found it hard to collect my thoughts. So, since it seems unlikely that he will look at that thread again, I decided to start a new one (with his initials in the title). [I guess that I'm hoping that something "more can be learned."]

I want to start by saying that I thought David set off with a "mis-step" by using the world "evolving" in his title -- "Is Church Doctrine Evolving Again" -- and then saying that "the Catholic Church evolves its dogma and doctrine." In our highly politically charged society, we have to be careful about our terminology, both in our writing and in our thinking. The words "evolve/evolution" have negative connotations to millions of people. They are not words that the Catholic Church uses to talk about itself. [Also, "evolve" is an intransitive verb. Perhaps something can "evolve," but a Church cannot "evolve" something.] Since the words, in scientific context, refer to the "coming into being of new species -- plants or animals that are so different that they often cannot be mated to each other" -- those terms are particularly inappropriate to use with reference to Catholic doctrine. A doctrine does not "evolve" into something else.

The proper terminology that we need to use is "Development of Doctrine" ["DoD"]. By doing just a bit of searching, either in a library or on the Internet, each of us can find a great deal to read on this subject. I am not going to present that material here. I will just say a few small things about DoD and invite other faithful Catholics to expand upon it. Perhaps someone will want to show that what has occurred with respect to the Marian doctrines has been entirely appropriate. [Please see another thread ("Simple question. Is Mary co-redeemer?") for my comments on the specific controversy that David raised.]

The first thing I want to do is demonstrate just how "felicitous" a choice of words "development" is within the phrase, "Development of Doctrine.
We all have personal experiences of "development," in general, that we can use for drawing analogies to the way doctrine develops. Three come to my mind now:

1. When the warm weather comes we start noticing those green "balls" on rose bushes. Before long, there is something pink (or yellow, etc.) poking out through the top ... then more and more and more color is exposed. Then the ball of beautiful color begins to "unfurl," spreading out more and more over a period of time, exposing more and more petal surface to the air, to the bees, and to our gaze. Christian doctrine does likewise. The rose (doctrine) is the same rose (doctrine) on day one (in year one A.D.) as on day twenty-one (century twenty-one). It is just seen more and more wholly, understood more and more fully, and even emotionally appreciated more deeply.

2. When we take a Polaroid photo, we first see a seemingly empty white paper surface. Gradually, a hazy image appears. Then there comes more and more and more definition. And there is color, which is at first drab but then becomes vibrant. Christian doctrine does likewise. After having learned how a photographic image comes into resolution, we are not troubled that each new paper begins as a "blank," since we know that the image will develop. Similarly, having seen some doctrines develop, we are not disturbed when other doctrines develop from seemingly meager beginnings.

3. Consider a very elderly loved one of yours. That individual was once a single cell (a just-fertilized ovum), then an infant, an adolescent, an adult, and a senior citizen. Does anyone, for an instant, think that there were actually a series of different persons -- or were all those "manifestations" always just one person, no matter how differently they looked and spoke? That one person "developed" or "matured" without becoming a different person. Christian doctrine does likewise. We are not deceived by appearances -- neither in the person who develops nor in the doctrine that develops. And just as the person may cooperate with God to bring another person into the world, so God may allow a developing doctrine to seemingly bring to fruition a "doctrinal offspring."

I think that analogies #2 and #3 are particularly apt in reference to doctrines that need a good little while to develop even before reaching the point of being noticed. In #2, the image is "latent" in the paper -- invisible at first. In #3, the human being is so tiny as to be almost invisible to the naked eye at first. By analogy, a doctrine may not have even been known to the apostles, except in the most rudimentary fashion. Oh, but how the image and the person and the doctrine do indeed develop, given time!

I hope that the above musings will constitute at least an attempt to reply to the following concerns that David voiced in his original question: "One of my personal frustrations is having a discussion with a Catholic who interjects as the reason for his/her belief the guiding principle that the Church's dogmas/doctrines were passed along intact from the Apostle Peter and are actually the way the Church has always believed from the beginning. The scriptures may say nothing on the doctrine or even seem to contradict it, but it is said that 'tradition' has always held to this particular interpretation and it just took the Church hundreds and/or thousands of years to properly articulate it. The reason I find this frustrating is that it just doesn't ring true. It is one thing to stand with the Truth against the tide of heresies that continually arise. In that case, your statements of belief would remain unchanged over the years. It is quite another to evolve your interpretation of the Truth, continually changing your statements of belief step-by-step, each building on the prior step to the point where you now believe something that is far removed from the original belief."

I can't resist responding to some other things David wrote:
"If you were to tell the Apostle Peter or the Apostle John that you were considering elevating Mary to the position of co-Redeemer and co-Mediatrix ... they would flip."
Funny that David chose those two gents. My patron saint, John, would not "flip," but would probably support the cause, using evidence gleaned from living with his beloved "adopted mother" Mary. And St. Peter would say, "Great!" after having been informed that the pope, his successor, had promulgated the doctrine. (_8^D)

David also wrote: "One might argue that such is the way one understands things; that we build one truth on another as we gain understanding. But the fundamental assumption in that approach is that a builder uses a plum-line when adding any new piece to the building to make sure the building stays on course with the blueprints and foundation and so that parts of the building do not become flawed by faulty construction. [The construction analogy continues at some length. Some may wish to look at it on the original thread, but it is not necessary to repeat it here.]"
David's attempt at an analogy fails in three respects. The Church does not "build" doctrine. She does not "add new pieces" of her own choice, design, manufacture, and application. And the end result is never "flawed." God, not the Church, has the blueprints that show the fully-formed doctrine, as it will exist at the end of time, and he allows the structure gradually, and in a supernatural way, to take that shape.

Before reproducing a newspaper article, David concluded his own remarks with the following words. [I must say that, in re-reading the words, I notice more than a hint of emotion, though I don't know why it is present. I'm tempted, "reading between the lines," to see David shouting, "D@#$ you guys! I was getting close to rejoining the Church, and then you come out with this stuff about a Marian dogma! (_8^D)]

"So how did the Church get to this place where it is considering adding a dogma that is so far removed from the early church's beliefs? OK, I know. Most everyone here will not view this from the perspective I've framed here, and that's only fair. But I invite you to read the article and see if you don't find that it reflects an evolving step in the evolution of Catholic belief. And is that the way you envision such steps occurring? From what I've read about Church history, from both a Catholic and Protestant perspective, this article seems to capture pretty much what happens all of the time. There is an idea for changing Church beliefs that is put forth and remains under the surface for years, decades (even centuries) as an unacknowledged belief that is neither endorsed nor denied by the Church. Eventually, if a sufficient groundswell of support, coupled with adequate political manipulation, is able to occur, the belief can become official dogma. Is that what you consider to be passing along or clarifying of the apostolic tradition? Does it not sound more like changing the tradition to fit popular/current interpretation?"

The first thing that I must say is that a New York Times article about religion ought not be trusted or presented as legitimate evidence to faithful Catholics, since the NYT powers-that-be are rabidly anti-Catholic.
Next, the Church doesn't "consider adding dogmas," as should be apparent from my earlier comments about "development of doctrine."
Next, no "idea for changing Church beliefs," no matter how long it lies dormant, ever results in "official dogma." Catholic Church teachings do not get "changed," because the word "change" implies that error was formerly taught -- which is impossible.
Next, please let us not speak of "political manipulation." That is demeaning terminology, below the high Bowerman standards.

Well, I have just read the NYT article -- after writing all of the above -- and perhaps I can understand David's perturbation. I am even more perturbed than he is, because the article is utter garbage. The pathetically inflammatory title of the article ("Mary: Mother ... and Savior?") should have been sufficient warning that this was going to be a "hit piece." It contains absolutely nothing about Mary being called "Savior." I refuse to waste the hour that it would take me to detail the errors and little insults that are buried within the article. All I can do now is to ask David never again to believe what the NYT has to say about the Catholic Church. Most people know that "religion" sections of secular newspapers (especially liberal ones) cannot be trusted to get the facts straight and to keep their ideological advocacy out of their tainted stories. I'm sad that David was unaware of that.

I wish to request that faithful Catholics here provide everyone (including David) with URLs for sites that post accurate news about our Church. I'll start with two:
This is the Zenit News Service site. Although this service is not run by the Church, I have yet to see an unkind article here. A nice thing is that it is based in Rome, where news is more abundant and likely to be more accurate.
This is the 'Daily Catholic' site. [Caution: Alleged private revelations (not yet approved) may be discussed at this site. My preference (and recommendation) is to avoid that subject.]
God bless you. Thanks for putting up with the length of this message.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 16, 2001

Answers

-- (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 16, 2001.

We have a duty as Christians, to remember some key episodes in the lives of Mary the Blessed Virgin, and her son Our Lord.

These are easily seen in the Holy Bible: A reference by the holy man, Simeon, in the Temple of Jerusalem, to the ''sword'' that would pierce the heart of Mary, because of the coming of Our Redeemer.(Luke, 2:35) /

Mary knows better than all of us, what it means to be a cause of division. If anyone is grieved by these senseless arguments; the ''sinlessness'' of Mary-- May we pray to Mary-- Is Mary a Co-Redemptress; etc.,-- If it grieves us; think what it must do to her?

The ''sword that would pierce her own heart'' was the coming of a Messiah --The Son Of God with Mary herself-- Who would separate HER from the Holy Temple of Jerusalem, the Temple of the Lord, according to Hebrew teaching. She was a Jew. Now the Jews would disown her, and bring false charges (in the Talmud of Judaism) against her-- because she brought forth to them a Messiah they would not accept! Simeon knew what he was talking about. In scripture, ''SWORD'' stands for division, separation. The Jews would separate themselves from Christians.

Now, in our day, Mary is made to feel-- her name causes division among Christians. They use her-- to separate a Catholic from a ''Born-again, Bible Christian''. Those that hope to gain an upper hand in argument with Catholics about the teachings of Catholic Tradition, particularly-- ought to see what they are doing to her. She stood at the foot of the cross with her child, the Son of God! Does she deserve to be dragged through the mud of controversy, for the sake of upholding Protestant claims? Just think about that.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 17, 2001.

it is important to note that some of the biggest division in discussions is over a musunderstood terminology. There is a big difference in what the Church terms Tradition (capital T) and tradition (lowercase t).

Tradition (lowercase t) are traditions in every sense of the English word. The Latin Mass, Communion rails, et cetera. These are defined as things that are important only in their function of bringing the message to the people and facilitating the spread of the faith. They can be adopted, modified, or dropped as the times require.

Tradition (capital T) are those things handed down from the oral teachings of Jesus to the apostles and the teaching of the apostles to the early Church. These are things that are also defined as explicit OR IMPLICIT or may never have been written down at all at the time. They are only preserved in the Church itself.

I posted something earlier which quotes a c2nd century letter describing the earliest Masses. This is contains beliefs that are Tradition, and not simply tradition. Trans-substantiation is to be found implicitly (or even explicitly, if you want to argue it) in scripture and most certainly in the oral (ie, not written) teachings of the apostles. Therefore, it is impossible to "point to" something written down and find it spelled out in plain English. But then again, that was a big reason Jesus and the apostles set up the Church to begin with, to preserve the rites and beliefs of an underground faith. You have a tendency not to write the most important stuff down when you are being persecuted for it.

-- anthony (antaine@aol.com), January 18, 2001.

Yes, by all means, do NOT get your idea of Catholicism, or any other religion, from a secular publication. Even granting (optimistically) that the newspapers are only interested in informing the public, religious issues are far too complex to be summarized by a half page article.

The best way to learn about the religion, is as you are doing, to talk to the people themselves and to study it as they do. I'm not saying you have to go to church, but read the writings of the church, talk to the religious leaders, visit their websites, etc. That doesn't mean you need to convert to whatever religion you study, but I really think it is the most reliable way of learning what a group of people actually believe. There are many stereotypes and misconceptions about every religion, and the media are certainly not unbiased.

I'm afraid I don't know many websites, but some Catholic churches offer theology classes that everyone, even nonCatholics, can attend. You might not be interested in that, but if you could really learn a lot. After all, the Catholic church has been around almost 2000 years, and is fascinating from a historical viewpoint.

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 19, 2001.