Posted on 11/24/2009 7:04:59 AM PST by Salvation
Featured Term (selected at random):
Critical evaluation of the dogma of the Catholic Church, similar to biblical demythology of the Bible. The basic premise is that doctrinal formulations are all time-conditioned. The definitions of the Councils of Nicaea, Chalcedon, and Trent are to be re-examined on the basis of what they really mean, by sloughing off what is unhistorical because mythical from what is historical and still true. On these terms nothing that the Church has ever taught in faith or morals would ever be substantially unchangeable, or at least the faithful can never be sure what this unchangeable substance is.
Catholic Word of the Day – links will be provided later by another FReeper.
|
Casualism |
Victim |
Frustulum |
|
Unity |
Isaiah |
Episcopal Curia |
|
Wake |
Canonical Age |
Paschal Candle |
|
Doctrinal Demythology |
|
|
Catholic Word of the Day Ping!
Please send me a FReepmail if you would like to be on the Catholic Word of the Day Ping List.
I think that is a healthy thing.
Reminds me of the story in artillery school where the well-trained crew circa Vietnam era would get ready to fire the gun, one guy would run up beside the gun and hold his hand over his shoulder, exposing himself to fire.
General came and asked (bit more colorfully than I can state in the Religion forum) “What the, um, frog, is he doing?”
Turns out he was training to hold the horses steady that hadn’t been used since WWI.
Organizations just pick up institutional baggage.
What is the dogmas of Nicaea, Chalcedon or Trent, in your opinion, is a reference to a presently non-existing horse?
I have no specific complaint against the dogmas of Nicaea, Chalcedon or Trent, nor did my post remotely imply the same.
My point is re-examination is a good thing, as vestigal practices (or good practices that might need to be re-examined in light of modern times).
Doesn’t mean that there is anything to be found, but the process is good, and, in my experience, typically stregthens one’s faith.
Only the ignorant and weak in faith worry about re-examination.
To contemplate the dogmas frequently is fine, but if the premise is that there is a mythical component to the dogmas that waits to be discovered and discarded, then that premise is false by the definition of dogma.
For example, let us postulate that we don’t know if the donkey of Balaam really talked, or if it is a literary embellishment — a myth. If the Church were to construct the dogma about the donkey really talking, that would be an impossible dogma: one that does not arise from witness or from scripture. Such “dogma” would not need to be re-examined and cleaned up, such dogma would be a scandal.
Compare that to the dogma that Jesus rose from the dead. Of that there are independent witnesses and the scripture is clear on it. It is not a literary device: the gospel writer spent a lot of effort to point out that Jesus rose from the dead, was not a ghost or mirage, spoke, ate, was touched, was recognized by many, etc. This is why this is a dogma: it is both historical and necessary for the faith. That Nicea happened a long time ago only strengthens our faith in the historicity of the resurrection as Nicea was closer to the actual historical event. It is therefore absurd to re-examine Nicaea and theorize that perhaps something other than resurrection really happened and that the bishops at Nicaea really mixed myth with truth. People who “re-examine” Nicaea on that score exist, but they are properly described as non-Christians, and the dogma still stands as a whole despite them.
“but if the premise is that there is a mythical component to the dogmas that waits to be discovered and discarded, then that premise is false by the definition of dogma”
Where did you get the premise that there “IS” a mythical compent? The goal is to see IF there is an error (which there generally is not).
To the extent you say never to test dogma (not sure you mean this), well, I disagree. Dogma should be tested early and often.
How do you propose we “test” any dogma? We either believe a historical fact took place or we don’t.
You look at the supporting evidence and contrary evidence, by going back to the oldest/best sources one has at one’s disposal (which do change over time; example Dead Sea Scrolls or archaelogy).
You look at the supporting evidence and contrary evidence, by going back to the oldest/best sources one has at one’s disposal (which do change over time; example Dead Sea Scrolls or archaelogy).
That is not re-examination or testing of the dogma in order to alter it. That is testing if you are willing to accept the dogma, which stays unchanged.
Let us say you discover the evidence that someone impersonated the resurrected Christ. Now you have two sets of evidence that are mutually exclusive: the evidence of the Church that Christ rose from the dead and the evidence that you found that it was an impersonator. You either believe one or the other. You don’t demand that the Church discards her evidence and replaces it with yours.
Dogmas have changed or been slightly modified by interpretation over time.
Witness the new movement for a dogma that Mary is a co-redemprix with Jesus Christ, or the various other Marian dogmas that came into officialdom circa 1950.
They are late dogmas indeed, but they are not examples of a changed dogma. For example, the bodily assumption of Mary has been a belief since the early days, but it was not elevated to dogma till late. It is not like people used to dogmatically believe one thing about the assumption and later they were asked to believe a different dogma. They are examples of a longstanding belief recognized as being historically accurate, that is, dogmatic.
In case of Mary as co-redemptrix, it is not likely that it ever will become a dogma, because the term is not well-defined. Perhaps one day there will be a clarification in what sense she is a co-redemptrix and in what sense she isn’t.
Are dogmas able to be demythologized? I always thought dogmas were settled.
Isn’t the original post about doctrine?
Big difference in my estimation.
Guess I’m confused with the interchange. Maybe I missed something.
Depends how one is defining “dogma.” If using the pure RCC definition, sure, they are settled.
That says, “baggage” grows up around any given dogma, and, IMHO, the proof behind any given dogma should be revisited, simply as an intellectual exercise to strengthen one’s faith and sharpen belief.
The process also prevent heresy from slipping in.
It mixes both words. The title entry uses “doctrinal”, but in the body “dogma” is used and the examples are from consiliar dogmas.
That part is true. But it is then not the dogma but the "baggage" that needs to be re-evaluated. Here is an example. There is a dogma of the Purgatory: that a soul destined for Heaven undergoes a state of temporal purification after death. There is a baggage around it: the image of suffering from physical fire in some physical place. The Pope not long ago reminded us that the latter is but a way to imagine the Purgatory; we don't know anything about the duration of it, nor of the precise form of the purification and suffering. But did the Pope alter the dogma? No. He clarified it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.