Can a Doctrine Rise in Essentiality?

Kevin Moritz wrote a very good piece on CMI.

Can Christians believe in evolution?
by Kevin Moritz | First published: 21 October 2010
https://creation.com/can-christians-believe-evolution

Refeatured today.

Do I agree with his conclusion? Or even with all of his principles? No. I'll come back to that.

But I agree with this:

There are a range of biblical doctrines; and, while it’s important to be as consistent and biblical as we can, not every one is as “essential” as every other (even when we consider only true doctrines, as opposed to various misinterpretations). The Bible itself contrasts the “milk”, or “basic principles of the oracles of God”, with “solid food” for the “mature” (Hebrews 5).

Now, I would say, it is an essential doctrine that Mary was sinless from the very moment of Her conception. It is an essential doctrine that anyone who in wilful ignorance rejects the proofs of the Catholic Church being Christ's one true Church up to when he dies is going to Hell. These are dogmas known as Immaculate Conception and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Note, the latter also includes things like, if you are NOT guilty of rejecting Catholicism, you can still go to Hell by lacking (valid Baptism and) Confession for your actual mortal sins. Now, the justification from mortals (in the kind of act and personal circumstances surrounding it), committed after Baptism, can happen through an act of perfect contrition, through an act of faith, hope and love. This could indicate that there is some kind or degree of possibility someone who died without converting and being received into the Church is not in Hell (leaving Heaven or Purgatory). If Charlie Kirk's last known and openly observable prayer had been a rosary, I would have felt more confident for him, than when twenty minutes before he died he prayed with Evangelicals.

If Dimond brothers are right there is no hope at all we can licitly entertain, that's a doctrine which I've sometimes struggled to accept as "solid meat" in the sense of Hebrews 5. But equally, if there is some kind of hope, as suggested by Father Nix, by a few more, that's also a "solid meat" doctrine not required as essential to a 16th C. Spaniard. When a Luterano was tried by the Inquisition (and it didn't mean the confession we call Lutherans, in Spain it meant essentially Calvinist Presbyterian) people expected that if the heresy wasn't his fault, the Inquisitor would understand the messup and disentangle it. He would stand on an "auto da fé" literally pronouncing an auto da fé, an act of faith, i e adherence to the Catholic Church.

This suggests one situation in which a doctrine could become more essential than before, if we come to a point where we can observe kinds of people we couldn't observe before, this raises formerly unknown questions about their salvation. Pre-Columbians. Populations cut off from Catholicism by Protestant Governments. People accessing Catholic doctrine and good arguments for it through the internet. People prevented from using the internet sufficiently.

But let's get back to the question of essential doctrines. In Catholic parlance, an essential doctrine is called a dogma. There are certain ways for the Catholic Church to pronounce something which is dogma (Immaculate Conception 1854 by Pope Pius IX, Papal Infallibility 1870 by the Vatican Council — a k a Vatican I) or at least dogma equivalent (universal adherence in the Church Fathers, direct statement in the Bible, if in a correct version and correctly understood).

So, how come the Immaculate Conception could become dogma in 1854 and was sth which St. Augustine was free to reject? Or rather, could get away with rejecting? A doctrine can become more essential than it was before. I'm not going over here in detail why Sinlessness of Mary is a Biblical doctrine always held by the Church or why it finally (with John of Damascus, against Augustine) trumps Universality of the Fall (woman and her seed in Genesis 3:15 is if not proof, at least suggestion to treat Mary in the same category as Jesus rather than the same category as all of us, i e the rest of us). Rather, it's a question of how a doctrine once optional (though true) can become essential.

And this is where I say, no, Christians can't believe in Evolution and Deep Time any more. If you say "horses evolved from Eohippus and grass from algae, over millions of years, but God created Adam directly 4000—5600 years before Christ was born, with no bestial ancestry" that can be fine. But the only reason to accept horses evolving from Eohippus (now again Hyracotherium on wikipedia) or millions of years is coupling phylum hierarchies with "scientific" datings, and if the most reliable dating method is Carbon 14, if a very low percentage of modern Carbon (14) is only possible in a young atmosphere, if we find evidence that Homo Soloensis tool making required language, this will close that wiggle room. Pre-Adamite real men is already out, saying non-men with human anatomy could have had close enough to human language turns man as image of God into an unobservable theological extra, putting Adam 750 000 years ago as William Lane Craig proposes reassigns Genesis 3 and 4 from history to prophecy, though neither Bible nor Tradition, neither Josephus nor Augustine say Moses had a revelation about the events, making it prophecy means having to interpret how Genesis 5 and 11 are somehow rather accurate prophecy than an inaccuracy in history, and apart from that also poses the question where Genesis ceases to be prophecy about as unclear as the Apocalypse, if it even does so.

A collective fall is contrary to Trent Session V, on Original Sin, canons 1, 2 and 3. Adam as representative for other already existing men, already image of God (like Christ on Calvary) is as useless, since, why would unfallen man need a representative, and if it were about "becoming" the image of God, again this makes "image of God" an unobservable theological extra. If you solve for "image of God, but not yet called to immortality and a personal relationship" you are very literally repeating the alrady condemned error of Isaac Lapeyrère (who actually did publically reconcile with the Catholic Church and so is presumed to have repented of it).

I think this gives a pretty good model on how a discussion could turn two options into a dogma and a heresy. A thing becomes heresy when either all its proofs or all its explanations that are left are clearly false or even at odds with revelation. I would say, this is what Newman talked about in the term "development of dogma" and this is also how we arrived where three Marian dogmas which as late as a month before his death Charlie Kirk rejected become non-negotiables.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Therese of the Child Jesus
and of the Holy Face
3 Oct. 2025

30 Sept. Lexovii, in Gallia, item natalis sanctae Teresiae a Jesu Infante, ex Ordine Carmelitarum Excalceatorum; quam, vitae innocentia et simplicitate clarissimam, Pius Undecimus, Pontifex Maximus, sanctarum Virginum albo adscripsit, peculiarem omnium Missionum Patronam declaravit, ejusque festum quinto Nonas Octobris recolendum esse decrevit.
3 Oct. Sanctae Teresiae a Jesu Infante, ex Ordine Carmelitarum Excalceatorum, Virginis, peculiaris omnium Missionum Patronae; cujus dies natalis pridie Kalendas Octobris recensetur.