Popes and councils define doctrines officially (for which "ex
cathedra" is the highest level) only when a debate has arisen over an
interpretation of doctrine. If no serious challenge has ever been
made to a doctrine, if one has an unbroken tradition, no official
declaration is needed. It is very possible that this is true in the
case at hand. Certainly the assertion of the descent into hell is
very ancient; since it was contained in a creed that carried apostolic
authority, a challenge would be unlikely.
Even when councils or popes exercise the highest levels of official
authority, they may merely confirm a longstanding teaching that only
recently came under challenge. In all such cases they are at the very
least making a decision in favor of one interpretation over against
another (or more than one) interpretation that has arisen at some
point. In some cases the competing interpretations may all have
arisen relatively recently. Different times give rise to different
questions, but the teaching authority of the Church does not cast
around for areas in need of new dogmatic declarations, rather, it
responds to questions that have arisen over time. Hence the absence
of a dogmatic decision on a particular doctrine (e.g., on the change
of substance/_res_ in the Eucharist, for which one finds no dogmatic
statement until the 11th century) does not mean that the official
position declared in the 11th century was held by no one until that
time, rather, it could just as well indicate a general consensus such
that no official declaration was needed until a challenge to the
consensus arose. (Before anyone jumps all over me for omitting the
9th-century Eucharistic controversies, let me hasten to add that
Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus were arguing more over which terms
should be applied to "reality," not over the reality of Christ's
corporal presence in the Eucharist. Berengar in the 11th century was
proposing something different, or at least seemed to be proposing
something really new, even if he was misunderstood, what he appeared
to be proposing had not been proposed before and was considered
unacceptable. Yes, I have read Henry Chadwick's article, "Ego
Berengarius" on this topic--about Berengar being misunderstood.)
Dennis Martin
>>> <[log in to unmask]> 10/13 7:13 AM >>>
In a message dated 10-13-1999 5:28:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> Perhaps so. Actually the priest Pat was quoting had misinformed
her in
> two ways, A) that belief in Christ's descent to the place of the
dead
> is not required of Catholics and B) that the doctrine is not
mentioned
> in the Bible.
>
> For Catholics, though, the deciding factor is not the opinion of
"the
> Church en masse". Cf. the definition of the doctrine of Papal
> Infallibility of 1870:
Bill,
just for my information: which Pontiff spoke ex cathedra on the
descent, and
when?
pat
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|