Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-27T17:16:13.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Authority of Doctrinal Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2024

Henry St John O.P.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this final article we shall examine and contrast the verdict of two traditions upon one of the most far-reaching and divisive of all doctrinal developments, the cultus of our Lady and the Saints; the tradition of historic Christendom in East and West, and the tradition of the Churches of the Reformation. The development of Mariology, which is of course a part of Christology, from the virginal conception and the divine Motherhood, clearly grounded in the New Testament, to our Lady’s perpetual virginity, her Immaculate Conception and her corporal Assumption, together with the universal mediation of her merits and intercession, is viewed by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches upon precisely similar principles; the later developments being regarded as implicit in New Testament doctrine. It is true of course that since the definition of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated by Pius IX, Orthodox theologians have unanimously denied what they formerly treated as an open question. Dr E. L. Mascall has remarked on the suspicion of the West that the real objection is not so much to the dogma itself as to the mode of its promulgation. He goes on to suggest the need for a deeper investigation by the Orthodox of the nature and transmission of original sin, with a view to clearing away misunderstandings concerning its bearing upon the doctrine as defined.

This universal tradition of the cultus of our Lady, a wholly developed doctrine, found in the Scriptures in seminal form only, was rejected at die Reformation in deference to the insights of the Reformers, who claimed not only to set right abuses, but, on the strength of those insights, and in opposition to the authority of the Church’s Tradition, to decide what were abuses, and what were not.

Type
Research Article
Information
Blackfriars , Volume 36 , Issue 429 , December 1955 , pp. 483 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © 1955 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 The Mother of God, ‘The Dogmatic Theology of the Mother of God’, by E. L.Mascall. (Dacre Press, Westminster 1949; page 47.) A footnote says that in the discussion, following the paper from which we have quoted, Dr George Florovsky pointed out that before 1854 there were in fact a number of prominent Eastern Orthodox theologians who defended the Immaculate Conception. It should not be forgotten that in the Western Church also, during the Middle Ages, the doctrine was contested by many theologians, including St Thomas Aquinas. The divine Motherhood (theotokos) and the perpetual Virginity (aeiparthenos) have both been the subject of ecumenical decisions by General Councils of the Church. The Assumption, though universally believed in the East, has never been formally defined. But then, as has already been noted, there has been no general Council of the East for eleven hundred years.

2 The Pattern of Christian Truth. A study of the relations of Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church. The Bampton Lectures for 1954, by H. E. W. Turner. (A. R. Mowbray, 1954

3 Life, November 1950.

4 Downside Review, ‘Theology and the Liberal Arts’, Spring 1955; pages 134‐135.

5 Christ Our Brother. London 1931; pages 38‐76.

6 vide Le Christ, Marie et l'Eglise. Yves M.‐J. Congar O.P. Paris 1951. Part II.

7 Cardinal Newman in Difficulties of Anglicans, Vol. II, 69.Google Scholar London 1892.

8 ibidem, page 69.

9 Newman, ibidem, page 36.

10 Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth, page 490.

11 Theology, 19th February, 1951. ‘The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary’, pages 64‐70.

12 For the substance of this suggested interpretation I am indebted to Professor G. Temple's very interesting comment on this incident. ‘Conversation Piece at Cana’, Dominican Studies, Volume VII, 1954.

13 Incidentally Professor Turner at this point makes what seems an unwarranted and tendentious identification of the ‘friends’ in Mark iii, 21, who said ‘He is beside himself’, and his Mother and his brethren in Mark iii, 31, who were without, seeking him.