March 31, 2005 at 12:09 am #1005AnonymousInactive
Doctrinal Development, what is it?
Was just curious how you guys understood it.
~VictorMarch 31, 2005 at 4:44 am #4035
[quote:2a45hijf]Doctrinal Development, what is it?[/quote:2a45hijf]
Good question. ” title=”Smile” /> I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
I guess it’s the way a doctrine develops over time and unfolds naturally into the practice of the faith. :” title=”Question” />March 31, 2005 at 6:02 am #4036AnonymousInactive
Well, from my understanding, public revelation and inspiration (oral and written) ended with the death of the last apostle (mostly likely John). What does this mean? Basically, everything God wanted us to know had an expiration date on it which was John. But that doesn’t mean that the Church had a clear understanding of it. The Lord made it clear that “He will come (Holy Spirit) to help you and guide you into all truth”. <–This isn’t a word for word.
To me that make sense, because isn’t that how life is?
It’s like having a physics course. A book and an instructor to guide you. All the information you need is there, but it will take you a while to come to understand it. Obviously the Apostles had an extra outpouring of Grace to speed their understanding but you still have the human factor that limits them from understanding God fully.
Who can really grasp God fully?
Not me, I have a hard enough time with the things down on earth.
” title=”Neutral” />
~VictorApril 27, 2005 at 6:06 am #4356AnonymousInactive
Anyone want to take a stab at giving ONE example of something that falls under doctrinal development.
~VictorApril 27, 2005 at 3:07 pm #4358AnonymousInactive
[color=darkblue:kmy7a2iv]How about the trinity?
It was known and believed all along, but it developed as the church grew and discussed things like the hypostatic union and the diety of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, Right?
The doctrines on the diety of Jesus and the Holy Spirit then developed along with that, even though all of this was believed by the early church.
It’s just that as the church lives out its relationship with God (as with any relationship) we come to know and understand God better and what the relationship means to us. It doesn’t change the relationship except to deepen it.
Pax vobiscum,[/color:kmy7a2iv]April 27, 2005 at 3:31 pm #4359AnonymousInactive
That’s a good example Black Knight. How about all the mysterious surronding Mary? Those would also be doctrinal development right?
~VictorApril 27, 2005 at 11:32 pm #4368AnonymousInactive
I’m currently reading Cardinal Newman’s book about doctrinal development, and he addresses a number of instances of this, as well as some terrifically deep and awfully, awfully, too, too Nineteenth century writing about the process of development. He also related this to the communion of the saints, purgatory, and the Eucharist. You might want to check this out…May 13, 2005 at 12:29 am #4560AnonymousInactive
As an example of the Development of doctrine:
The Church has always and will always teach that Christ is present, Body and Blood, in the Eucharist. However, it was not until 1215 (Fourth Lateran Council? I’m not good on Council names but for osme reason that seems to be sticking out–I am probably wrong, knowing me), that the Church officially defined it, as well as using the word “Transubstantiation” to define the process of the bread and wine COMPLETELY changing into the Body and Blood.
Maybe that’s not what your looking for, but I think it is.May 13, 2005 at 3:25 pm #4566AnonymousInactive
Hmm…..not exactly sure if that is one. Although the church takes a while to define things, the substance of the doctrine in it’s entirety sure seems to be there with the Eucharist. You can read several early church fathers that saw the Eucharist as we see it now. I could be wrong, but I guess I don’t see much GROWTH in the Church when it comes to the Eucharist. It was mystery back then, it’s a mystery now.
How about the Papacy?May 13, 2005 at 6:30 pm #4570AnonymousInactive
[quote:1rdik2cv]Hmm…..not exactly sure if that is one. Although the church takes a while to define things, the substance of the doctrine in it’s entirety sure seems to be there with the Eucharist. You can read several early church fathers that saw the Eucharist as we see it now. I could be wrong, but I guess I don’t see much GROWTH in the Church when it comes to the Eucharist. It was mystery back then, it’s a mystery now.
How about the Papacy?[/quote:1rdik2cv]
Hmm… I think I know what you are getting at. I think the Trinity is definitely the best example of development of Doctrine, but I’m sure there are others.May 13, 2005 at 7:15 pm #4574AnonymousInactive
I got one!!!
The canon of scripture!! It wasn’t put together until 397. It’s not like the Church had a CLEAR view of what belonged in the Bible. There was a sort of growth that was assisted by the Holy Spirit in this one. What do you think?
~VictorMay 13, 2005 at 7:50 pm #4576AnonymousInactive
Yeah, that is definitely a good one.May 14, 2005 at 12:32 am #4581
Why, exactly, are we trying to find all these examples? Is there a greater lesson, Victor, or are you just wanting illustrations?May 14, 2005 at 3:18 am #4582AnonymousInactive
Well originally I was trying to get someone to answer the question “what is doctrinal develpment?” and then I was getting to “how does it work?”. I haven’t done any intense reading in this area and I am quite curious about it. Is this something that does not catch your interest?
~VictorMay 14, 2005 at 4:22 am #4584
[quote:63nxquiz]Is this something that does not catch your interest?[/quote:63nxquiz]
It’s not that. I was just wondering. ” title=”Very Happy” />May 15, 2005 at 5:06 pm #4593AnonymousInactive
What about the differences between venial and mortal sin, and actual and original sin?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.