Terry, I honestly hoped that @Glenn could weigh in on this because he is the one who gave me the picture of the book awhile ago. I don’t know if it is something that the author conjectured or if the seers mentioned. So, I’m hoping that Glenn may know.
Hi DeGaulle. That would not be correct to say "entirely." Just to give two obvious examples. The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption both contain elements in the definition that were new. But those new things did not contradict anything from the past official teaching of the Magisterium. That is called "doctrinal development." It is similar to Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity," meaning that anything new cannot contradict (or be in rupture) with the past settled teaching, but that there can be "additions" to the prior Magisterium that do not contradict.
Were they actually new things? Because there is nothing "new" under the "Son"... The Catechism says: III. CHRIST JESUS - "MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION" 25 God has said everything in his Word 65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son." 26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews1:1-2: In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty. 27 There will be no further Revelation 66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." 28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. " The bolded part here does seem to indicate there will not be any "additions" to anything...imho...but a deeper understanding of what has been revealed... https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/index.cfm?recnum=375
Yes, correct. They are "newly defined elements" of the Magisterium that are to be held definitively. They were implicit in the original understanding of the teaching (and so not completely "new"), but are newly made explicit by the dogmatic definition. It is like a seed in relation to the full grown plant.
With all due respect, it's either new or not. "not completely new" is, to my mind, "not completely pregnant". A deeper understanding of something does not make it new. But, as previously stated, my logic skills are greatly lacking...
Hi Lois. You are welcome to your own opinion, although you disagree with some very important Catholic theologians. The concept of "development of doctrine" would be meaningless if nothing "different" or "new" was said in the later formulation. The "newness," however, must not "contradict" (a logical term) what came before and that "newness" must be something that was left unsaid, but "implicit," in earlier formulations. Granted, it is a subtle distinction. But Cardinal Newman and Benedict XVI were big believers in this concept. Here is a recent article on the concept as it relates to St. Vincent of Lerins theological method: https://catholicinsight.com/saint-vincent-of-lerins-and-true-development-of-doctrine/
Well, I love Pope Benedict XVI & St. John Henry Cardinal Newman. Wonderful theologians indeed, far beyond me. However, it seems to me the semantics are the issue. "Development of doctrine" is a theological subtlety which, when my brain reads it, translates to "deeper understanding" of what's been revealed. Some today are using that subtlety of words to change it to what they would like it to mean...ie, "new, but not completely new". When the CCCB issued the Winnipeg stmt for example, they actually closed it off with the words of a hymn written by St. Newman. imho, I don't believe he would have been very happy about that. "The great Cardinal Newman once wrote: "Lead kindly light amidst the encircling gloom We believe that the Kindly Light will lead us to a greater understanding of the ways of God and the love of man." I'll stop here, because this is way over my head. Thank you, though, for letting me express my thoughts. ~~~ http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/winnipeg.html
God bless him, and all of our heroic clergy who are not afraid to defend the Bride of Christ. May the Holy Spirit bless our shepherds with great fortitude and wisdom.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. The bad guys are misusing Newman and St. Vincent of Lerins to justify modernism. Modernism promotes an "evolutionary" theological method, which allows logical contradiction of an earlier Catholic doctrinal definition. That is why it was condemned by St. Pius X. But "development of doctrine," correctly understood is not Modernism, correctly understood. Again, I admit it is a subtle point of difference and one lost on most Catholics, which is exactly why the bad guys exploit the confusion.
Hi Byron. The part that I think is most important about that post is the Cardinal Manning quote (http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2015/07/rome-shall-drive-away-vicar-of-christ.html): "The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” - Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90 Note the distinction made between "the city of Rome" and "the vicar of Christ." The former denotes the bishop of the city of Rome, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. The latter denotes Benedict XVI, who is still the reigning Vicar of Christ. Cardinal Manning says that "the city of Rome," (i.e., the counterfeit Church led by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the apparent bishop of the city of Rome) will drive away "the Vicar of Christ," (i.e., Benedict XVI). Then, Cardinal Manning backs up what he says by naming numerous Catholic "theologians of great repute." And ends by saying that this interpretation was that of all of the Fathers of the early Church.
So young too, our great hope for the future. It is a really great idea he has to have his own little Retreat place to get away and think and pray and read about things. I wish everyone could have their little place to pray. Even for people of no Faith; how great it would be if they could set aside a little time to think about things. Perhaps they might slide out of the mountain of lies we are all buried under. Matthew 6:6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Would it not be more accurate to say that there was nothing new about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, but rather that they were statements of the obvious that simply were belated? How could the Son of God share His tissue with a sinner? No more then than now-no more than anyone in sin can share His presence in Heaven. It's a matter of logic...and to my mind, nothing is more logical than traditional Catholicism. Remember, this debate was quite explicit in the High Middle Ages, between Aquinas and Scotus and their followers (Scotus got this one right). Likewise, the later Fathers of the Church considered it very likely that Our Lady was assumed into Heaven, something supported by the reality that no shrine of her remains ever developed, no more than it did with her Son. Given the history and tradition of the Church, there is no way I can see these dogmatic declarations as anything but the official rubber-stamping of Truths that necessarily and logically had to exist and were generally part of the Faith since the beginning. This is the very reason why they could be declared Infallibly-they were the conservative and reactionary confirmations of Revealed Truth.
You're not in over your head, you're doing at least as well as any of us. Your enthusiasm for Saint John Henry Newman is shared by me, because he devoted himself, most of all, according to his own words, to opposing Liberalism within the Church, which was the nineteenth-century term for what was to become Modernism, and now Progressivism.
If you will read the following document, you will see that the precise understanding of the Immaculate Conception was controversial right up until the dogma's definition. Many Catholics disagreed on the correct way to understand the teaching. It was only in 1854, when the dogma was proclaimed, that the debate was ended. https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/j/john-duns-scotus-on-the-immaculate-conception.php Here's the key quote: Though belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception never wavered among the truly faithful, for centuries theologians were at a loss to explain adequately and with satisfactory doctrinal clarity this privilege accorded the Mother of Christ. The "newness" was in the "doctrinal clarity" that the concept was expressed as well as the finality of the Church putting an end to the theological debate by choosing a single definition among the many floating around in Catholic circles prior to the dogma's definition. To claim that the dogma simply was a "statement of the obvious" is incorrect.
I am a great admirer of Newman. I remember him explaining that all heresies have been with the Church from the beginning. They just dress up in different costumes in different centuries but there is "nothing new under the sun."
