Can Catholic Theology Change?

[miguel]

So, my question is, can you prove that science can lead people to God?

To the extent that science uncovers truth about God’s creation, yes it can lead to the creator. Jesus said the truth will make you free. Higher truth (i.e., revealed truth) is freeing because it lights the way spiritually. But truth discovered by human reason is also freeing (e.g., advances in medicine, engineering). Human creativity points to God because we are made in his image.

 

[razredge]

That is disgusting. Human expression is naturally sinful and meaningless if it is not for the glory of God. So, if music is not glorifying to God, but is merely humans expressing themselves, then it will rot and decay and die like the things of the world. However, that which the Church binds and looses is also bound and loosed in Heaven. I’ll be able to listen to Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus in Heaven, but I won’t be able to listen to 1000s of songs which have obscenities in them, and neither will anyone. If a song has an obscenity in it, it is sin and cannot be in Heaven.

That’s quite a protestant position there, that human expression is naturally sinful and meaningless.
In any case the Church doesn’t agree, have you seen the Vatican’s top 10 albums of the 20th century - they’re not filled with Christian music that’s for sure.

So, my question is, can you prove that science can lead people to God?

Yes, well it certainly leads me to God,

-You and I can agree with science depending on your answer to this question: Do you believe science can be truthful even if the findings come from people who are atheists/ hindus/ bhuddists/ moslems, and not Christians or Jews?

Yes? Truth does not depend on the beliefs of the finder. Hence much of Christian philosophy is based on the work of the ancient Greek philosophers.

-Proverbs 1:7 The beginning of knowledge comes from fear of the Lord. How can the scientific findings of atheists/ hindus/ bhuddists/ moslems be considered knowledge if they do not fear the Lord?

You can’t just pick quotes from the Bible and apply them to any situation you like to back you up, you realise? The Proverbs were musings about God, life, etc it’s not a list of divinely revealed facts.

The teachings of Jesus Christ don’t make sense to humans. They are anti-thetical to humanity. Counter cultural.

Counter cultural certainly, but not non-sensical.

That is why you cannot submit to it because it makes sense. Some of the law that Jesus affirmed falls under that category.

The Sabbath stems from Jewish tradition, Jesus himself said the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath and was not some kind of divinely instituted rigmarole to prevent people doing things on a particular day.

 

[razredge]

razredge

Not sure I understand you. If by “developed” you mean that it is been fleshed out, there certainly has been some fleshing out of the fine points of theology over the centuries. But If you mean by “developed” that the Church has contradicted its own teaching over the centuries, I think you are on the wrong track. The Church cannot teach moral or doctrinal “truth” in one era then call it “error” in another era.

To the average person, what you call developed would be seen as a change.

This doesn’t mean that theologians and popes haven’t contradicted each other. What it means is that the formal teachings of the Church, once dogmatized, cannot be undogmatized.

Ah but what you do there is all the contradictory teachings of popes/councils etc are defined to be fallible wheras the non-contradictory teachings that we still believe today are infallible - this categorisation is all done after the fact.

Usury would not be a good way for you to go as an example. It was condemned in the Middle Ages and is still condemned by the present Pope. The definition of usury may have been modified over the centuries, but the fact of charging unreasonable interest rates on loans has always been regarded as sinful and comes under the sin of greed.

Usury was the practice of charging any interest on loans but over the centuries it has been watered down to charging unreasonable interest on loans.

By the way, as a Catholic what would be your reason for arguing, if you do, that the teaching of the Church have changed over the centuries? Are you aware that the signal fact about Catholicism, as opposed to all the other Christian sects, is that it has held itself loyal to the earliest teachings of the Church, and that it is only the Protestants who have changed their theology by the creation of thousands of contradictory sects?

Mainly, because it isn’t the case so people should stop claiming it is and also to prevent the stifling of theological development due to the misguided sense of absolute continuity and changelessness of Catholic teaching throughout the past 2000 years.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

That’s quite a protestant position there, that human expression is naturally sinful and meaningless.
In any case the Church doesn’t agree, have you seen the Vatican’s top 10 albums of the 20th century - they’re not filled with Christian music that’s for sure.

Yes, well it certainly leads me to God,

Yes? Truth does not depend on the beliefs of the finder. Hence much of Christian philosophy is based on the work of the ancient Greek philosophers.

You can’t just pick quotes from the Bible and apply them to any situation you like to back you up, you realise? The Proverbs were musings about God, life, etc it’s not a list of divinely revealed facts.

Counter cultural certainly, but not non-sensical.

The Sabbath stems from Jewish tradition, Jesus himself said the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath and was not some kind of divinely instituted rigmarole to prevent people doing things on a particular day.

Pope Benedict XVI refutes all of your claims, so you must not be a good Catholic, because you are erring from the leadership of the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, and the Vicar of Christ.

1. From Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg address from 5 years ago. "…the final conclusion in this argument against conversion by violent means is: do not act according to reason, it is against God’s nature.”
   -Submit to the Pope :bowdown2:
   So, that is the Pope agreeing with what I’ve already told you. The nature of God and the law of God are contrary to human reason and understanding. We cannot understand them. To REQUOTE myself, as you failed to read it: “part of the law seems to defy all logic and reason”. “part of the law seems to defy all logic and reason”.
2. You answered my questions. But you didn’t realize that my questions were asking what YOU BELEIVED. Well, you answered what you believe. But, how do the beliefs of a fallible mortal person such as yourself align with the beliefs of the Church, Jesus Christ, and the Successor of Peter?

I’m just as fallible as you, where we part ways is that you seem to entertain ideas that you have arrived at, whereas I look to the Church founded by Jesus Christ to tell me what is the truth. No truth can be arrived at without Jesus Christ.

1. If my position on music is a “protestant positon”, then why is it also the position of Benedict XVI who has purged modern music from the Vatican?
   telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569975/Pope-to-purge-the-Vatican-of-modern-music.html

Btw, the Pope went ahead and went through with his consideration for a “dramatic overhaul of the Vatican in order to force a return to traditional sacred music”.

And furthermore, I don’t take kindly to even the slightest hint that I am mishandling the Holy Word of God. I put my trust in the Lord God to exonerate me of this charge. And I would remind you not to bear false witness against your neighbor.

1. I challenge you to show me where in the Bible Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for men. I don’t doubt it’s there, because it doesn’t diminish my argument at all. I just would like to see that you actually read the Bible.

Once you do show me where it is, I’ll have you refer that the Sabbath would fall under the 2nd category of the law, which I mentioned in my earlier post: the part of the law based of Jewish tradition. And, would not actually fall into the whole category of law that is once more: completely against all logic and reason.

Yet, you, a man, want to claim something that is contrary not to 2,000 years of tradition, but 3,500 years of tradition. You are claiming that the law in the Torah (Old Testament) is logical. Or, man could arrive at it with his human faculties. It makes “SENSE”, we could arrive at it through our senses (or testing our senses). Non-Christians could arrive at these truths even.

The Jews would never have arrived at these laws. They would’ve worshiped golden calfs, had God not revealed the law to Moses. Men would not have discovered or tapped into the law if it were not for the direct revelation of God.

Submit to this truth or continue to believe that mankind can do important spiritual things without God. John 15:5… Apart from Him you can do nothing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

razredge
**
Usury was the practice of charging any interest on loans but over the centuries it has been watered down to charging unreasonable interest on loans.**

You like to confuse change with contradiction. The Church has always condemned usury as a form of greed. Greed has always been condemned by the Church, even when certain churchmen may have committed the sin.

There was no capitalism in the Middle Ages as we know it today. Our economic system has changed, and therefore the definition of usury (interest rates) has changed with it. But greed is greed no matter which economic system prevails.

In the Middle Ages interest often could not be paid on a loan because the person receiving the loan had not the wherewithal to obtain capital sufficient to repay the loan. The seizure of that person’s assets then became a matter of exploitation; just as today the interest rate on your credit card, to the extent that it is inflated, is a form of exploiting you to the point where you can no longer pay off your other debts.

In other words, usury in the Middle Ages was as bad, or worse, than it is today … and was therefore rightly condemned as it is today when excessive interest rates are charged.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The following quote is from the Catholic Encyclopedia published in 1912, and from the article titled “Usury”

“It is a curious fact that for a long time impunity in such matters was granted to Jews. The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), c. 27, only forbids them to exact excessive interest. Urban III, c. 12, “De usuris” (V. 19) and St. Louis in twenty-three of his regulations extended the prohibition to the Jews. With the exception of c. 27 of the Fourth Council of the Lateran, we know of no canon law which takes into consideration the question of moderate interest; and canon law nowhere states distinctly that interest is, under any circumstances whatsoever, contrary to justice.”

 

[tonyrey]

1. If my position on music is a “protestant position”, then why is it also the position of Benedict XVI who has purged modern music from the Vatican?
   telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569975/Pope-to-purge-the-Vatican-of-modern-music.html

Btw, the Pope went ahead and went through with his consideration for a “dramatic overhaul of the Vatican in order to force a return to traditional sacred music”. .

You may be interested to know that a few years ago our bishop told the parish priest the sung Latin Mass on Sunday was no longer appropriate and would be discontinued in the New Year. The choir went on strike and on Christmas Day I had to endure the ordeal of singing the Missa de Angelis solo and leading the congregation for the first and last time in my life! When some of the parishioners cancelled their covenants and went to other churches the bishop relented. Sadly Father Peter died a few months later, probably due in part to the stress of the revolt. He told me he was only a worker at the coal face and just obeying orders… R.I.P

 

[cerad2]

You may be interested to know that a few years ago our bishop told the parish priest the sung Latin Mass on Sunday was no longer appropriate and would be discontinued in the New Year. The choir went on strike and on Christmas Day I had to endure the ordeal of singing the Missa de Angelis solo and leading the congregation for the first and last time in my life! When some of the parishioners cancelled their covenants and went to other churches the bishop relented. Sadly Father Peter died a few months later, probably due in part to the stress of the revolt. He told me he was only a worker at the coal face and just obeying orders… R.I.P

Are you really saying that a Bishop changed his mind just because he was losing customers?

 

[tonyrey]

Are you really saying that a Bishop changed his mind just because he was losing customers?

That wasn’t the sole reason. He realised he had underestimated the value of the traditional liturgy in his zeal for modernising the prayers of the Church.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**He realised he had underestimated the value of the traditional liturgy in his zeal for modernising the prayers of the Church. **

Maybe somebody also went over his head?

 

[tonyrey]

**He realised he had underestimated the value of the traditional liturgy in his zeal for modernising the prayers of the Church. **

Maybe somebody also went over his head?

The affair was reported in a national newspaper and caused quite a stir! It was pointed out that Pope John Paul II had asked bishops to respect the Latin Mass. The Second Vatican Council had not abolished the traditional liturgy nor called for the change of language.

Father Peter confided in me because we had both worked in Africa and had a different outlook on life…