I understand the distinction. It was done to allow a form of slavery which is still slavery.Mal: Is the distinction seemingly lost on you? Apparently you do not seem to understand the distinction.
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.
Jesus had all power and authority on heaven and earth. He could have forced himself on the whole world but He chose not to do it that way.Mal: Wait until Judgement day - you will.
You make good distinctions here. I would also add to that last phrase the following in red: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.”
I would agree to the addition of “defined” but not with the rest of your definition. The Church defines dogmas in writing. Thus the church could not contradict this written definition. “Understanding” is not defined in writing. To me, “Understanding” is too vague of a term. If it is defined explicitly then it is defined explicitly. If it can be defined further, it can be defined further by appropriate representatives of the Church.You make good distinctions here. I would also add to that last phrase the following in red:
“Is it possible for the Church to contradict one of its previous teachings on [defined] dogmatic matters of faith and morals” **or understand them in a different sense or with a different understanding than how she has always understood them.
**
Once again the Church has abused God-given power and authority by enforcing slavery in any form and by making friends with earthly methods of conversion.Mal: That would be “HAS” all the power except that portion given freely to the Church to Bind on or Loose on Earth.
If a man wants to reject God he can. That IS a God-given right.Mal: Actually he gives man Free Will BUT IN ADDITION to that Free Will he gives man sufficient Grace so as to make the proper moral choices with that free will. Thus free will isnt a right and man is judged justly accordingly. The whole world was lost without him and can only be saved by him. These are details seemingly overlooked by you as it relates to free will.
Yes, it does now. This is what it teaches now and since 1890. However, a question is whether or not it has always taught so unequivocally. For example, we see that bishops, priests and nuns have owned and sold slaves in North America, and they said that it was all right for them to do so. I don’t see anywhere where the Vatican announced that they were going to excommunicate these bishops or priest for holding slaves, nor do I see any announcenment from the Vatican forbidding Catholic priests from giving the Sacraments to slaveowners. However, there were statements against the slave trade per se. It is known that Pope Innocent VIII had 100 Muslim slaves that he accepted from King Ferdinand of Aragon. Can you name one Father or Doctor of the Church who was an unqualified abolitionist and called for the complete abolition of slavery?The Church opposes the enslavement of another human being. .
I can start off with the Creed:I know the definition. But it is even argued which pronouncements met the definition. Please provide a list of infallible truths which all must live by and then we can move forward.
That would make them schismatics not heretics. And do you have the Church’s actual teaching regarding members of the Eastern Churches receiving Communion in a CC? If you could post that, it would be helpful as well. Thanks.It seems like there has been a change in whether or not those who espouse heresy should be given Holy Communion.
Before Vatican II, the teaching was NO: For example, we see that according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215): Canon 3:
“We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under….Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the church to such pestilent people nor give them a Christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indulgence of the apostolic see.”
However, after Vatican II, the teaching is YES, if a person does not believe that the Pope is the infallible head of the Catholic Church, but he is in good faith and belongs to an Eastern Orthodox Church, he may be given Holy Communion.
Did you know that believe it or not there have actually been bishops, priests, and nuns that have stolen, lied, committed fornication, and all sorts of other sins. Does that mean that therefore the Catholic Church teaches these things are ok? Or does the Church have a responsibility to denounce every individual person by name who does such actions? These individuals would be guilty of going against the Church’s teachings, not acting in accordance with them. Their behaviors do not constitute teachings of the Church.Yes, it does now. This is what it teaches now and since 1890. However, a question is whether or not it has always taught so unequivocally. For example, we see that bishops, priests and nuns have owned and sold slaves in North America, and they said that it was all right for them to do so. I don’t see anywhere where the Vatican announced that they were going to excommunicate these bishops or priest for holding slaves, nor do I see any announcenment from the Vatican forbidding Catholic priests from giving the Sacraments to slaveowners. However, there were statements against the slave trade per se.
I see what you are saying in that people can try to understand things different ways or give them a different understanding than what may have been intended. However, words can and do communicate the author’s intentions, and in order to gain an understanding of what the Church has always meant by a particular teaching, we must first start with her most authoritative sources and read them in their full context. What so often seems to happen regarding no salvation outside the Church is people will try to read the old documents intent on getting them to mean something different than what they clearly say and they will even try to divorce individual dogmatic statements and definitions from the rest of the explanations given along with them in order to try to change their meanings.I would agree to the addition of “defined” but not with the rest of your definition. The Church defines dogmas in writing. Thus the church could not contradict this written definition. “Understanding” is not defined in writing. To me, “Understanding” is too vague of a term. If it is defined explicitly then it is defined explicitly. If it can be defined further, it can be defined further by appropriate representatives of the Church.
For the topic of “No Salvation outside the Church”, perhaps the ongoing debate on what this means is evidence that it has not been sufficiently defined. Of course, it could be evidence of a lack of understanding of the definition or an acceptance on the part of the sheep for the clarified (which means “more clear”) definition.
It looks like the teaching may have been changed recently, since Cardinal Kasper has stated that the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jews. Also, some of those outside the Catholic Church are allowed to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church. Why would they be allowed to receive Holy Communion if they cannot be saved?I see what you are saying in that people can try to understand things different ways or give them a different understanding than what may have been intended. However, words can and do communicate the author’s intentions, and in order to gain an understanding of what the Church has always meant by a particular teaching, we must first start with her most authoritative sources and read them in their full context. What so often seems to happen regarding no salvation outside the Church is people will try to read the old documents intent on getting them to mean something different than what they clearly say and they will even try to divorce individual dogmatic statements and definitions from the rest of the explanations given along with them in order to try to change their meanings.
If I tell you that outside of Noah’s ark, no one at all survived the flood and that only those inside the ark were saved, would you then try to interpret my statement to mean that possibly there were some people that were not in the ark but that were still saved? That obviously would be ridiculous because I already ruled out this possibility when I used the words “no one at all.” Had I simply said that people needed the ark in order to be saved, then you could conclude that possibly people could have hung on to the ark or had life boats attached or strings to other boats or possibly that by seeing the ark it gave them hope and then they were able to be saved from the flood by mustering up extra strength to stay above water and hold onto wreckage, etc. When the wording is vague, people can draw different meanings, but when the wording is clear and says “no one at all”–especially in a dogmatic definition–we can know for certain that the Church meant “no one at all.” If she meant “no one except…” then she would have lied when she said “no one at all.”
IV Lateran Council 1215: “One indeed is the universal Church of the Faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” Pope Innocent III ex Cathedra. fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html
The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV:
(Infallible General Council & Ex Cathedra papal declaration) ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
Council of Trent, Profession of Tridentine Faith
I do, at this present, freely profess and truly hold this true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved; and I promise most constantly to retain and confess the same entire and inviolate, with God’s assistance, to the end of my life. uoregon.edu/~sshoemak/323/texts/trent.htm
Pope Innocent III. Profession of Faith Prescribed for Durand of Osca and His Waldensian Companions* [From the letter “Fitts exemplo” to the Archbishop of Terraco, Dec. 18, 1208]:
By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved (Denzinger 423). catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma5.php
Pope Pius IX, Allocution, Singular quadem. Dec. 9, 1854:
For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation**; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood** catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma17.php
CATECHISM OF POPE SAINT PIUS X
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church. ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm
I think there is a problem with your reasoning. Here’s why. Recently an archbishop got married and he was told by the Pope that he would have to give up his wife. This was in the news. However, in the case of the US Bishops and clergy who not only owned slaves, but who wrote to the US Congress saying that slavery was moral according to the Scriptures, they were not reprimanded, as far as I know, by the Vatican for holding slaves or for writing a justification of slavery?Did you know that believe it or not there have actually been bishops, priests, and nuns that have stolen, lied, committed fornication, and all sorts of other sins. Does that mean that therefore the Catholic Church teaches these things are ok? Or does the Church have a responsibility to denounce every individual person by name who does such actions? These individuals would be guilty of going against the Church’s teachings, not acting in accordance with them. Their behaviors do not constitute teachings of the Church.
Then it looks to me like this is a pretty serious change in the teaching of the Church on what constitutes heresy. I thought that it would be heresy if a person were to deny articles of Catholic faith such as the infallibility of the pope, the supreme universal jurisdiction of the pope, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary into heaven, Purgatory and Indulgences, the filioque. But now you say that this teaching has changed and it is only schism and not heresy to deny these articles of faith?That would make them schismatics not heretics.
If the Vatican does not denounce every action of a group of bishops that may contradict Church teaching, does that mean that the pope has thereby officially taught that what they are teaching is acceptable? The Church is a very big organization, and unfortunately, the pope is not all knowing and doesn’t always receive such information immediately and doesn’t always have time to respond to every ordeal. Furthermore, you admit that you do not know if the pope did respond. For all you know, he may have responded in a private letter reprimanding them. The pope is not God. He is a man. You cannot expect everything everyone in the Church does to always be specifically and publicly condemned.I think there is a problem with your reasoning. Here’s why. Recently an archbishop got married and he was told by the Pope that he would have to give up his wife. This was in the news. However, in the case of the US Bishops and clergy who not only owned slaves, but who wrote to the US Congress saying that slavery was moral according to the Scriptures, they were not reprimanded, as far as I know, by the Vatican for holding slaves or for writing a justification of slavery?