I am beginning a series of forty posts commenting on the historical and theological significance of the Declaration of Truths. From my view, this document holds the key to the way forward and out of this crisis. See my essay here for why I believe that is. Among other things, the Declaration solves the confusion of the conciliar period by confessing forty propositions of faith and morals which address a great many of the errors inflicting souls today.
Against their Foundational Error
The first and foundational truth is the proper understanding of the development of doctrine. This is the foundation because it opposes the Modernists’ own foundation error: evolution of dogma. As St. Pius X says, the “intrinsic evolution of dogmal” is for the Modernists “amongst the chief points of their teaching.” It is
An immense collection of sophisms…that ruins and destroys all religion. [According to them,] Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed (Pascendi, 13)
This error is the contagion of every heretical infestation. Therefore it is the central heresy within Modernism, itself the “synthesis of all heresies.”
Foundational Truth
Therefore the Declaration begins with this proposition:
The right meaning of the expressions ‘living tradition,’ ‘living Magisterium,’ ‘hermeneutic of continuity,’ and ‘development of doctrine’ includes the truth that whatever new insights may be expressed regarding the deposit of faith, nevertheless they cannot be contrary to what the Church has always proposed in the same dogma, in the same sense, and in the same meaning (see First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, sess. 3, c. 4: “in eodem dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia”).
It is worth quoting from the referenced Vatican I document:
If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.
This particular language is used against the Modernists because from their first appearance in the 19th century until now, they use deceit to spread their errors. They claim to uphold the Catholic faith, yet they change its meaning.
Examples of Contrary Senses
So for example, they say they believe in the Resurrection, but what they mean by that is not that our Lord was physically dead and then rose from the dead. They mean that a Christian has an emotional experience of God and Jesus “rises in his heart.” The two senses are contradictory.
Or again the Church has taught that adultery is always and everywhere sinful, and that it is impossible for an adulterer to be given Holy Communion. And yet, Pope Francis has asserted that not only can adulterers sometimes not be sinning, but they can receive Holy Communion. The two senses are contradictory.
And again, the faith tells us that the state can lawfully put a man to death according the norms of justice, for the sake of the dignity of man. And yet Pope Francis has asserted that not only the death penalty but even long prison terms are contrary to the dignity of man. The two senses are contradictory.
The Vital Phrase
Against the erroneous evolution of Dogma, the Declaration utilizes the crucial phrase “same sense, same understanding” to safeguard a correct notion of Development of Dogma. This phrase was contained in the Oath Against Modernism until the Oath was suppressed by Pope St. Paul VI in 1967. Pope St. John Paul II began a new Oath, the Oath of Fidelity in 1998, but unfortunately it did not include this important phrase.
But what is a proper notion of doctrinal development? Ott (p. 7) makes the distinction between dogma in the material sense and dogma in the formal sense. This utilizes the philosophical distinction between matter and form. Matter is the stuff from which something is made, and form is the way the stuff takes form into a thing. So Dogma In the material sense means the whole of revelation given by the Apostles: the deposit of faith as a whole. Within this deposit is contained every truth from revelation. However, some truths are not apparent, or must be given definite form to be clear and beyond all doubt.
| Material | Formal |
|---|---|
| Deposit of faith | Deposit explained |
| Every truth is implicit | Truth made explicit |
| Disputed questions | Definitive doctrine |
Examples
An example: before Nicea, Christians believed that the Son of God was true God and true Man. This point of doctrine was already contained implicitly in revelation. But when Arianism arose, this point of doctrine was cast into doubt. Therefore the Nicene Council altered the form of the doctrine by taking what was implicit and making it explicit. It introduced the word consubstantial to express the same sense as before with more precise words. Thus the form of the dogma changed, but the matter stayed the same. Therefore the matter of the dogma is always the same sense.
Put another way, let us take for the matter a particular person named Michael. When Michael is a young boy, he is Michael. When Michael is an adult, he is Michael. His form has changed, but his matter—what makes him Michael—stays the same. It is impossible to become a different person.
Thus the Declaration states that new forms cannot create a sense that is contrary to the prior sense. New forms serve only to maintain the matter the same (as in Nicea) or allow the truths to reach their logical end (as in the growth of a person).
For an understanding or true development, it is crucial to study the writings of soon-to-be-Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman. His Essay on the Development of Doctrine can be found online or in print
See also the Resources page for more information.
Timothy S. Flanders
@meaningofcath
You are 100% correct. I have personally worked around these Modernists and they adore Newman and they will do anything to hijack him.
Also, can we please stop calling JPII, Paul VI, et al. “saints,” regardless of their canonizations? There is no requirement for the title itself, and their cults should be suppressed anyway. Calling them “Saints” and promoting them as such would only help fuel the crisis.
Hello brother,
I appreciate what you’re saying about the modern saints. Nevertheless, I choose to call them saints. See the bottom section here for my reasons why: https://meaningofcatholic.com/my-confession-of-faith/
in Christ,
Timothy
Okay.
TimothyF wrote:
“Taking these things into consideration, I do not refrain from calling these men saints out of charity and piety. As St. Thomas states, “unless we have evident indications of a person’s wickedness, we ought to deem him good, by interpreting for the best whatever is doubtful about him.”[20]”
Not calling them “saints” does not equate to hatred and impiety tough. Deeming someone “good” does not automatically mean we should call them “saints.”
TimothyF wrote:
“Now if this obligation holds for any man, the virtue of piety compels us to think most favorably of the Sovereign Pontiff and the Church authority canonizing him. Thus although doubts and questions remain about the words and deeds of these men, they are receiving their eternal reward. We must have reverence for the dead and reverence for the Sovereign Pontiff.”
Again, this does not mean we should call them “saints” and promote the cult.
There are plenty of people in heaven who should not be marked with formal canonization because of the example of their lives. The formal Canonization process is not merely the identification of a “good person” and identification of their heavenly reward. It is a confirmation that the person has lived a life that the faithful can imitate – a great example of Catholicity.
People like Paul VI who approved so much destruction, and JPII who did atrocities like the Assisi meetings are *not* safe examples of imitation and Catholicity. Public acts against the faith without public repentance and correction are not people who should be labeled formally a “saint” and thus have a cult promoted – it is a danger for the faithful. (note: I am not saying it is a positive harm)
TimothyF wrote:
“I will not refrain from calling a man a saint for the bare fact that if he is a saint, I do not err is showing him due honor, and if he is not a saint, I err only in giving him greater honor that he has merited.”
But consider: by not calling him a “saint” and discouraging the cult (at least indirectly), it is not a dishonor – even if they are in heaven. Why? Again, the term “saint” has a multifaceted meaning in our context.
It would be more honorable to God and safer for fellow Catholics to not call someone like Paul VI a “Saint” and to not promote his cult because of the damaging example he gives to the faithful.
The safest route is to not call these men saints and to not promote their cult.
TimothyF wrote:
“In our examination of the post-conciliar crisis, we must hold steadfast to charity and piety in order to avoid excess and scandal.”
Ridiculous. It is a scandal to promote these men as saints in the first place.
Consider these scenarios:
Scenario 1: Call Paul VI and John Paul II “saints.” Faithful Catholics hear and read these titles. Faithful Catholics then consider the actions and writings of these men to be good and worthy of imitation, without distinction.
There is a danger that Catholics will now embrace error that follows these men (e.g. it’s okay to worship pagan gods and break the first commandment for secular peace, or it’s okay to rip apart and reconstruct any tradition). Or, if they do not embrace the errors, there is a danger that it will scandalize them and they will start doubting the faith (most of the time, it the former happens).
Scenario 2: Decline to call these men “saints.” Simply do not speak or write of them as “saints.” Do not display icons. Do not build shrines. Do not distribute their “relics.” Give them the respect of their office, but do not promote them as people of heroic virtue and worthy of imitation.
The latter scenario is the most prudent, as it does the least amount of damage that could possibly happen to the faithful, helps to strengthen the integrity of the faith, and hence glory to God. The second scenario, therefore, is the way to avoid “excess and scandal.”
Or in other words: Should I call JPII a “saint” when he helped people break the first commandment and commit sacrilege OR not call him a “Saint?” The obvious Catholic way to go is to not promote someone who committed (intentionally or not) such an action that is direct contradiction to the Holy Catholic faith.
Hence, not calling these men “saints” is the true Catholic and prudential path.
Hello brother,
Thank you for your critical response directly to my approach to the modern canonization problem. As I have said in other areas, in a time of crisis faithful Catholics will disagree on points which are not essential to the faith–of which I would count this issue. So although I disagree I do not hold this opinion strongly and I am open to correction.
You are bringing up one of the main issues with the new canonization problem, which is the lack of a devil’s advocate and the meaning of “saint” and public cult in relation to heroic virtue and the example for imitation. Yes, the excesses of JPII cannot be overlooked and must be faced. Thankfully, most of the Conservative Catholics who venerate Wojtyla do not wish to imitate Assisi. Nevertheless, your point stands. Catholics will be led to think that these deeds must be imitated. I will think about what you said take that into consideration.
Thanks for your thoughts brother.
Still,
Hello,
Sorry if I sounded aggressive there. Thank you for taking the time to read: I am thinking about some of your points as well.
One more point: Conservative Catholics will not try to imitate Assisi, this is true. But, I have seen plenty of them defend the event as not a big deal or sweeping it under the rug entirely. Plus, there is way way more than just Assisi – I have seen conservative Catholics even embrace some of JPII’s other mistakes.
That is true. I have seen an uncritical attitude among some of them toward JPII. To his credit, I doubt JPII himself would welcome this time of adulation.