tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post2679461863442375750..comments2024-03-29T04:31:15.219-05:00Comments on Pastoral Meanderings: Dogma Does Not Develop...Pastor Petershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10653554256101480140noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-38595470330952728732011-10-03T15:53:16.739-05:002011-10-03T15:53:16.739-05:00Quote "Back to the subject, the "develop...Quote "Back to the subject, the "development of doctrine" does NOT mean the definition of new doctrine. Not even for a neurotic lunatic like Newman."<br /><br />No, Newman did not say new doctrines but he did suggest that things that were barely mentioned in the early church develop into dogma or become, in their fullness, public doctrine. For example, papal infallability or the assumption of the BVM. What began as pious opinions among some became the public dogma or Rome. In this development the line between merely fuller explanation and new teaching is very fine, indeed.Pastor Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10653554256101480140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-55356289386801828452011-09-30T22:51:44.271-05:002011-09-30T22:51:44.271-05:00Back to the subject, the "development of doct...Back to the subject, the "development of doctrine" does NOT mean the definition of new doctrine. Not even for a neurotic lunatic like Newman. For the other lunatics in ELCA, their recent actions are not an example of what Newman meant. Unfortunately, Newman like other modern figures, such as Bonhoeffer and Teilhard, is invoked re things that are quite apart from anything they actually meant.<br /><br />Just as Bonhoeffer has been heralded as a forerunner of liberation theology, though he was not, Newman is invoked to excuse changes that are not at all developments as he meant it.<br /><br />Development of dogma does not mean change of dogma or finding new dogma. It means, to use two words he did not use but which entirely derive from his though, approfondimento, a deepening of understanding of a dogma, and aggiornamento, an expression of a dogma in a way more comprehensible to the current times.<br /><br />Knowing that does not prevent the mischief. Every change in teaching is explained as not a change at all but rather a deeper and more profound understanding of the same dogma, or as a new expression in the language of our times of the same truth.<br /><br />Recent RC history is full of such.<br /><br />But, we will shoot ourselves in the foot and disqualify ourselves from any consideration by those we would address on these matters, to counter them with an understanding of "development of doctrine" that thinks it means new doctrines can be defined. Rather, they are to be engaged with demonstrations that no, what they say is not in fact a re-expression in new terms of the same truth, or no, what they say is not a more profound understanding of the same truth.Terry Maherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17122266461403246084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-62022630903357209192011-09-30T19:56:18.634-05:002011-09-30T19:56:18.634-05:00Hilarious to see two (or is it three) guys who won...Hilarious to see two (or is it three) guys who won't even put their names to what they say discuss taking a position on something.Terry Maherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17122266461403246084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-70218511080095775372011-09-30T11:23:39.266-05:002011-09-30T11:23:39.266-05:00Attention Anon #2
The LCMS Convention in 1969 vot...Attention Anon #2<br /><br />The LCMS Convention in 1969 voted<br />to have altar and pulpit fellowship<br />with the ALC. Was that a doctrinal<br />position? The LCMS in 1973 voted<br />to condemn the theology of Seminex.<br />Was that a doctrinal position?<br /><br />It is naive to think that the LCMS<br />does not vote on doctrine or faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-60745006868612925972011-09-30T08:58:43.845-05:002011-09-30T08:58:43.845-05:00First of all, those were not doctrinal positions. ...First of all, those were not doctrinal positions. those were just opinions (not in our Confessions). Second, We are not bound by the opinions of individuals or even a church convention (since we do not vote on doctrine or faith).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-32809038961266073062011-09-30T08:44:20.415-05:002011-09-30T08:44:20.415-05:00Check out the LCMS for changing their
beliefs: Wal...Check out the LCMS for changing their<br />beliefs: Walther was FOR SLAVERY<br />because he lived in a pro-slavery<br />state like Missouri. Our forefathers<br />were against life insurance since<br />this indicated a lack of trust in<br />God. Before 1969 women were not<br />allowed to vote in parish voters<br />meeting and the Biblical proof was<br />the same for being against the<br />ordination of women. So the LCMS<br />has evolved over the years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com