Can the Church change its teaching?

[una_fides]

There also appears to be another change in Catholic teaching on the dragon. In the past, we have seen icons of St. Michael the Archangel in battle with the dragon who I thought represented Satan or a devil of some kind. However, now with the Chinese New Year, we have dragons parading throughout the Church and people are told that if you pat the dragon as it passes through the Church, it will bring you good luck. I think that this angle on the dragon in Church bringing you good luck is a new teaching which has appeared only recently.

Sid,

I think you are confusing local customs with official Church teaching. Can you show me where the Catholic Church has officially taught that patting dragons brings good luck? If not, then the Church has not changed any teaching on the matter, and you are making it abundantly clear that you are grasping at anything you can find in an attempt to prove that the Church changes its teachings.

Any bishop or even group of bishops can teach things contrary to the teachings of the Church. A great example would be during the Arian crisis in the early Church when the majority of the world’s bishops taught a full blown heresy concerning the divinity of Christ. They even had a heretical council on the matter. The key distinction between those who are truly Catholic and faithful to the teachings handed down by our Lord to his apostles and their successors is being faithful to Tradition.
*"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ" (Saint Athanasius, AD 373).*

 

[rinnie]

Is it possible for the church to change its teaching on something, or would that mean that it was previously in error? Or is it okay that it may have been in error, if it wasn’t an infallible teaching?

What’s coming to mind is that I have read the church used to teach that babies who died without being baptized could not be saved. Now, I understand that is not the teaching.

No if its a teaching is forever.

 

[ron77nyc]

But St. Paul did say that slaves should be subject to their masters and Catholic clergy owned and sold slaves.

Paul was speaking to slaves who were followers of Jesus “so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.” He never encouraged Christians to be slave masters. Clergy who owned slaves will have a lot of explaining to do at the judgement.

1 Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.

Colossians 3:22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

Titus 2:9 Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,

 

[ron77nyc]

The key distinction between those who are truly Catholic and faithful to the teachings handed down by our Lord to his apostles and their successors is being faithful to Tradition.

             *"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ" (Saint Athanasius, AD 373).*

Our Lord and His apostles celebrated the Sabbath on Saturday.

 

[Malleus_01]

<<<< But St. Paul did say that slaves should be subject to their masters and Catholic clergy owned and sold slaves. >>>>

Mal: From the fall of the Roman Empire until the rise of the industrial revolution slavery had all but disappeared from Catholic Europe. Slavery was never a Catholic Institution. Certainly the Church had to comment on the Institution of Slavery since it existed - however to say that the Church was in Favor of the Institution of Slavery is simply not factual.

 

[sidbrown]

Sid,

I think you are confusing local customs with official Church teaching. Can you show me where the Catholic Church has officially taught that patting dragons brings good luck? If not, then the Church has not changed any teaching on the matter, and you are making it abundantly clear that you are grasping at anything you can find in an attempt to prove that the Church changes its teachings.

Any bishop or even group of bishops can teach things contrary to the teachings of the Church. A great example would be during the Arian crisis in the early Church when the majority of the world’s bishops taught a full blown heresy concerning the divinity of Christ. They even had a heretical council on the matter. The key distinction between those who are truly Catholic and faithful to the teachings handed down by our Lord to his apostles and their successors is being faithful to Tradition.

             *"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ" (Saint Athanasius, AD 373).*

There are a lot of novelties like that being taught in Catholic churches today.
It does appear to me to be a pretty big change in Catholic teaching on the dragon. Before the dragon was the symbol of the devil, but now, it is taught that you will get good luck if you touch the dragon as he makes his way through the Church?

 

[surritter]

There are a lot of novelties like that being taught in Catholic churches today.
It does appear to me to be a pretty big change in Catholic teaching on the dragon. Before the dragon was the symbol of the devil, but now, it is taught that you will get good luck if you touch the dragon as he makes his way through the Church?

It is NOT taught that “you will get good luck if you touch the dragon as he makes his way through the Church.”

Didn’t you read Una Fides’ post?

If you want to levy charges about what the Church teaches, you need to become familiar with what the Church teaches.

 

[ron77nyc]

Slavery was never a Catholic Institution. Certainly the Church had to comment on the Institution of Slavery since it existed - however to say that the Church was in Favor of the Institution of Slavery is simply not factual.

The Church in the middle ages had a very different view of free will, religious freedom and slavery. Popes had influence on earthly leaders and they believed they were doing a good deed by forcing Christianity on Muslims and pagans.

romancatholicism.org/popes-slavery.htm
Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas on 18 June, 1452. It authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa.

The same pope wrote the bull Romanus Pontifex on January 5, 1455 to the same Alfonso. As a follow-up to the Dum diversas, it extended to the Catholic nations of Europe dominion over discovered lands during the Age of Discovery. Along with sanctifying the seizure of non-Christian lands, it encouraged the enslavement of native, non-Christian peoples in Africa and the New World.

In 1493 Alexander VI issued the bull Inter Caetera stating one Christian nation did not have the right to establish dominion over lands previously dominated by another Christian nation, thus establishing the Law of Nations.

Together, the Dum Diversas, the Romanus Pontifex and the Inter Caetera came to serve as the basis and justification for the Doctrine of Discovery, the global slave-trade of the 15th and 16th centuries, and the Age of Imperialism.

 

[una_fides]

There are a lot of novelties like that being taught in Catholic churches today.
It does appear to me to be a pretty big change in Catholic teaching on the dragon. Before the dragon was the symbol of the devil, but now, it is taught that you will get good luck if you touch the dragon as he makes his way through the Church?

Apparently you didn’t read my post very well. Please answer this one question or I ask that you please stop making ridiculous claims you can’t back up. Where does the Catholic Church officially teach any of these so called novelties concerning the dragon? If it is taught in individual Catholic Churches or even if in half of every Catholic Church in the world rogue priests and bishops taught such a novelty, would that make it an official teaching of the Catholic Church so that you could levy the claim that “the Catholic Church’s teaching changed” on this issue? You need to realize and distinguish between truth and error. Remember that Judas was one of the 12. Does his betrayal constitute official Catholic Church teaching as well?

 

[sidbrown]

The Church in the middle ages had a very different view of free will, religious freedom and slavery. Popes had influence on earthly leaders and they believed they were doing a good deed by forcing Christianity on Muslims and pagans.

romancatholicism.org/popes-slavery.htm
Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas on 18 June, 1452. It authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa.

The same pope wrote the bull Romanus Pontifex on January 5, 1455 to the same Alfonso. As a follow-up to the Dum diversas, it extended to the Catholic nations of Europe dominion over discovered lands during the Age of Discovery. Along with sanctifying the seizure of non-Christian lands, it encouraged the enslavement of native, non-Christian peoples in Africa and the New World.

In 1493 Alexander VI issued the bull Inter Caetera stating one Christian nation did not have the right to establish dominion over lands previously dominated by another Christian nation, thus establishing the Law of Nations.

Together, the Dum Diversas, the Romanus Pontifex and the Inter Caetera came to serve as the basis and justification for the Doctrine of Discovery, the global slave-trade of the 15th and 16th centuries, and the Age of Imperialism.

Was this the basis for the slave trade? Did it entail any declaration about the morality of buying and selling slaves?

 

[sidbrown]

Apparently you didn’t read my post very well. Please answer this one question or I ask that you please stop making ridiculous claims you can’t back up. Where does the Catholic Church officially teach any of these so called novelties concerning the dragon? If it is taught in individual Catholic Churches or even if in half of every Catholic Church in the world rogue priests and bishops taught such a novelty, would that make it an official teaching of the Catholic Church so that you could levy the claim that “the Catholic Church’s teaching changed” on this issue? You need to realize and distinguish between truth and error. Remember that Judas was one of the 12. Does his betrayal constitute official Catholic Church teaching as well?

What are you referring to that Judas has taught? Is the teaching of Judas written down somewhere?
The fact is that we see novelties even in the Vatican. We see canivals and clown performances. You may be right that these are not infallible ex cathedra teachings, but still they show that something has changed in the outlook and atmosphere of what is being taught.
I don;t think that it ever was an official or infallible teaching that a dragon would have to represent the devil, but that is how it has been portrayed, at least with the icons of St. Michael. That has been changed now and we do not even have the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel at the end of the New Mass, even though this prayer was standard at the end of Mass before Vatican II. So it is a change. Now we see dragons parading in Church and we are told that it is good luck if we can touch the dragon. This is a rather serious change from the outlook before, when this would have been unthinkable.
Is it written down anywhere as an infallible statement that it is wrong to pray to St. Michael the Archangel at the end of every Mass? I don;t see where it is. But the de facto truth is that this prayer is no longer said at the end of the New Mass. This is a change, whether or not it has been declared ex cathedra or not, it is a real and true change in every meaning of the word.

 

[Hesychios]

… I don’t think that it ever was an official or infallible teaching that a dragon would have to represent the devil, but that is how it has been portrayed, at least with the icons of St. Michael. That has been changed now and we do not even have the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel at the end of the New Mass, even though this prayer was standard at the end of Mass before Vatican II. So it is a change. Now we see dragons parading in Church and we are told that it is good luck if we can touch the dragon. This is a rather serious change from the outlook before, when this would have been unthinkable.

Although I agree that the Catholic church has reversed itself in the past and continues to morph itself, I think the dragon issue is a misfire.

This is strictly a cultural expression.

There is nothing wrong with using dragons as a personification of evil, that happens to be a common theme in Europe (in times past). If the church is going to be always Euro-centric this is not a problem.

The east Asians (I am thinking particularly of the Chinese) have always seen dragons in a better light, so artistically it doesn’t work. Likewise equating Satan with a dragon before a Chinese audience would be teaching the exact opposite of what one intends, Satan would be subconsciously glorified.

In historical fact, dragons were also taken represent the power of the emperor, and the phoenix (actually, it looks a bit like a peacock to me) is the power of the queen. On official buildings and monuments two dragons are sometimes interposed with a globe or ball in play between them. Most emperors in recent dynasties used nine dragons as a decorative motif on everything in the household, so if you find an old vase from China with nine dragons on it get it appraised .

None of this is theological, it’s just an aspect of culture one might appropriate to illustrate a point. The church itself is not wedded to the concept of evil dangerous dragons like Smaug.

What disturbs me about what you have written is that you say " …and we are told that it is good luck if we can touch the dragon". If you are correct about this, or have witnessed it in the church yourself I would say that it is an abuse. The church does not teach that touching anything will bring one good luck.

It’s simply not Christian.

Is it written down anywhere as an infallible statement that it is wrong to pray to St. Michael the Archangel at the end of every Mass? I don;t see where it is. But the de facto truth is that this prayer is no longer said at the end of the New Mass.

I remember that. I know that it refers to Satan as a serpent and a dragon (I suppose that these were intended to be insults, but that just shows us how much Pope Leo was bound to his own culture and unaware that his own Asian Catholic subjects would not appreciate the reference), but the shorter version I actually remember saying does not use the terms.

However I think (others may correct me) that this particular prayer was not actually part of the Mass. It was said after the Mass and was not that long a practice (perhaps 100 years? I don’t know … ).

Anyway, we all have to get to the parking lot and pull out before the people coming for the next Mass choke up the exits! We can say it in the car! lol

Honestly, I like the prayer and approve of the thinking behind it. It is not wrong to pray at any time.

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur:
tuque, Princeps militiae Caelestis, satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute in infernum detrude.

Amen.

 

[una_fides]

What are you referring to that Judas has taught? Is the teaching of Judas written down somewhere?
The fact is that we see novelties even in the Vatican. We see canivals and clown performances. You may be right that these are not infallible ex cathedra teachings, but still they show that something has changed in the outlook and atmosphere of what is being taught.
I don;t think that it ever was an official or infallible teaching that a dragon would have to represent the devil, but that is how it has been portrayed, at least with the icons of St. Michael. That has been changed now and we do not even have the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel at the end of the New Mass, even though this prayer was standard at the end of Mass before Vatican II. So it is a change. Now we see dragons parading in Church and we are told that it is good luck if we can touch the dragon. This is a rather serious change from the outlook before, when this would have been unthinkable.
Is it written down anywhere as an infallible statement that it is wrong to pray to St. Michael the Archangel at the end of every Mass? I don;t see where it is. But the de facto truth is that this prayer is no longer said at the end of the New Mass. This is a change, whether or not it has been declared ex cathedra or not, it is a real and true change in every meaning of the word.

Sid, First, I didn’t say Judas “taught” something definitively other than by his behavior in betraying Jesus. This is no different than the behavior you are observing of people petting dragons at Masses. Has the Vatican officially taught that petting dragons is good luck and should be done? My point is you are honestly bringing up ridiculous claims by saying that Church teaching has officially changed because in some culture they think it is good luck to pet a dragon.
Second, the making the prayer to St. Michael after Mass optional is a change in Church practice not Church teaching. If you watch the Masses performed on EWTN, you will see the prayer to St. Michael immediately following Mass.
Third, you still have not answered my question so it is obvious you are avoiding it because it clearly disproves your entire claim. Where does the Catholic Church now officially teach anything about petting a dragon being good luck???
Fourth, I agree that the attitude of the Church has officially changed in regard to stating things positively, vaguely, and in the least offensive ways possible. I believe this change to be extremely damaging to the faith, and I believe and pray for it to be corrected as soon as possible. This false ecumenism is bringing about a great religious indifferentism and is changing our faith rather than our faith changing theirs. The Jews are influencing our prayers and are confusing people into thinking that they are already in a saving covenant with God and do not need to convert to Christ and his new covenant. This is heresy, yet it is being taught by the highest in this ecumenical movement such as Cardinal Kasper. The pope does nothing, at least publicly, to reprove or correct these errors, which at least communicates that he believes them to be viable theological positions or not damaging to the faith or perhaps he even thinks such heretical teachings to be in some way beneficial to this false ecumenism. Who knows? All I know is that we need to continue to pray for them and continue teaching and believing the faith as it has always been handed down from the apostles and believed throughout the centuries. No where in Church tradition will you find ecumenism, which today has become a compromising with false teachings and a rationalization of their acceptance in favor of the beliefs of the false religion.

 

[rinnie]

It is NOT taught that “you will get good luck if you touch the dragon as he makes his way through the Church.”

Didn’t you read Una Fides’ post?

If you want to levy charges about what the Church teaches, you need to become familiar with what the Church teaches.

But this is how it always happens. People tell us what the teachings of our Church are. I have been a RC all of my life and never heard such a thing. May I add I have maybe missed 20 Sundays in my entire life. How could I have missed this if it was a teaching? That is what really bothers me, when people say these things, then others take off and run with it.

 

[ron77nyc]

Was this the basis for the slave trade? Did it entail any declaration about the morality of buying and selling slaves?

It was not the basis and there was no moral declaration but it “facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa” which means it assisted, helped and encouraged the business of slavery.

 

[Malleus_01]

The Church in the middle ages had a very different view of free will, religious freedom and slavery. Popes had influence on earthly leaders and they believed they were doing a good deed by forcing Christianity on Muslims and pagans.

romancatholicism.org/popes-slavery.htm
Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas on 18 June, 1452. It authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa.

Mal: Yes - we have seen this weak argument used before. Unfortunately for you - it doesnt hold up when applied to CHATTEL SLAVERY as you attempt to do here. “Dum Diversas” had more to do with Conversion to the One True Faith of Infidels living in Christian Territories which of course was the norm under Catholic Monarchies of the Day. The Catholic Religion was the Only Religion allowed in these Monarchies. Essentially - Become Christian - Leave - or if you decide to stay - become a second class citizen. And in light of the fact that all Non Believers end up in Hell - they were doing them a favor. The Purpose was never to consider them property and not men.

<<< The same pope wrote the bull Romanus Pontifex on January 5, 1455 to the same Alfonso. As a follow-up to the Dum diversas, it extended to the Catholic nations of Europe dominion over discovered lands during the Age of Discovery. Along with sanctifying the seizure of non-Christian lands, it encouraged the enslavement of native, non-Christian peoples in Africa and the New World. >>>>>>

Mal: Another fabrication. Catholic Spain sought to convert the Native Americans from Paganism. And were largely successful in doing so. To make a claim otherwise is to ignore large segments of History.

<<< In 1493 Alexander VI issued the bull Inter Caetera stating one Christian nation did not have the right to establish dominion over lands previously dominated by another Christian nation, thus establishing the Law of Nations. >>>>

<<<< Together, the Dum Diversas, the Romanus Pontifex and the Inter Caetera came to serve as the basis and justification for the Doctrine of Discovery, the global slave-trade of the 15th and 16th centuries, and the Age of Imperialism. >>>>>

Slavery was condemned by POPE Eugene IV: Sicut Dudum, note the Date : 1435. Thats 17 years PRIOR to Dum Diversas and it specifically condemns CHATTEL SLAVERY and was 60 years prior to the Discovery of America…

Pope Paul III: Sublimis Deus, 1537 condemns CHATTEL SLAVERY

Pope Gregory XVI: In Supremo, 1839 condemns CHATTEL SLAVERY even recalling the familiar phrase in servitutem redigere contained in the work of Paul III and his successors. He mentioned the efforts of Clement I, Pius II, Paul III, Benedict XIV, Urban VIII and Pius VII, before concluding this historical summary:

“Indeed these sanctions and this concern of Our Predecessors availed in no small measure, with the help of God, to protect the Indians and the other peoples mentioned from the cruelties of the invaders and from the greed of Christian traders.”

Perhaps a review of History is in order

Pax

 

[ron77nyc]

Slavery was condemned by POPE Eugene IV: Sicut Dudum, note the Date : 1435. Thats 17 years PRIOR to Dum Diversas and it specifically condemns CHATTEL SLAVERY and was 60 years prior to the Discovery of America.

One pope condemns slavery and another allows it. So now to explain it we have to make 2 types of slavery, chattel and non-chattel slavery. Does it make a huge difference to the slave? Does not being called a piece of property make him feel better about himself? The whole idea of forcing someone to accept a belief when they really don’t want to negates God’s original plan of free will. I don’t see Jesus and Peter approving of it.

 

[ron77nyc]

Slavery was condemned by POPE Eugene IV: Sicut Dudum, note the Date : 1435. Thats 17 years PRIOR to Dum Diversas and it specifically condemns CHATTEL SLAVERY and was 60 years prior to the Discovery of America.

One pope condemns slavery and another allows it. So now to explain it we have to make 2 types of slavery, chattel and non-chattel slavery. Does it make a huge difference to the slave? Does not being called a piece of property make him feel better about himself? The whole idea of forcing someone to accept a belief when they really don’t want to negates God’s original plan of free will. I don’t see Jesus and Peter going along with this idea.

 

[Malleus_01]

One pope condemns slavery and another allows it. So now to explain it we have to make 2 types of slavery, chattel and non-chattel slavery.

Mal: Is the distinction seemingly lost on you? Apparently you do not seem to understand the distinction. Slavery as you understand it DOESNT EXIST in Dum Diversas. Neither POPE approves Chattel Slavery which is what you are alledging. When you use the term SLAVERY - you are implying CHATTEL SLAVERY. That is incorrect.

Does it make a huge difference to the slave? Does not being called a piece of property make him feel better about himself?

Mal: Thats the entire point. A Muslim living in Christian Lands is not a CHATTEL SLAVE.

The whole idea of forcing someone to accept a belief when they really don’t want to negates God’s original plan of free will.

Mal: A Catholic Monarchy is a higher form of governance. Catholic monarchies wished to bring GOD’s Blessings upon their entire nation and to do his will on Earth. And under his protection flourish and prosper. And as for GOD’s Original Plan - God’s Original Plan doesnt call for rebellion and damnation. Free will isnt a human right or there would be no HELL.

I don’t see Jesus and Peter going along with this idea.

Mal: Wait until Judgement day - you will.

 

[whatischarity]

Is it possible for the church to change its teaching on something, or would that mean that it was previously in error? Or is it okay that it may have been in error, if it wasn’t an infallible teaching?

From the discussion already on the thread it appears that your phrasing of the original question was too broad. Obviously the church has changed its teachings on its own rules like fasting on Fridays and number of hours to fast before communion etc. Also obvious is that the Church has dogmaticized teachings (eg. Immaculate Conception) which also constitutes a change. The Church has also further defined its teachings and an example of this may be the understanding of what “No salvation outside of the Church” means. This too could surely be considered a change. More recently, teachings on what constitutes required activites to support life have arisen to address the advances being made in the medical field.

Please consider that although God does not change, man’s understanding of Him has changed and it was God who gave both the initial understanding and the current understanding. For example, God revealed to Abraham that He was the one, true God. It wasn’t until the New testament that man understood that although this is true, in the one true God there are 3 distinct persons. I hope this demonstrates change happens and it should not cause a red flag per se.

Could your original question be narrowed to something like “Is it possible for the Church to contradict one of its previous teachings on important dogmatic matters of faith and morals.”