Can the Church change its teaching?

[una_fides]

If not accepting all dogma and tradition of Roman Catholicism excludes you from eternal life we would have to conclude that all Catholics in the Church before these traditions and dogmas were taught would be excluded from eternal life.

By “were taught” I’m assuming you mean “were defined” for the teachings came from Tradition; they were merely not clarified and solidified into dogmas until later in the Church’s history. Some dogmas take time to develop (not change) in order to be defined, but once they are defined, then all from that point forward would be required to believe. The Church has the power to bind and loose. If the Church has not yet defined a doctrine or settled a matter of dispute, then in some cases it may be permitted for someone to believe contrary to the position that the Church ends up taking, as long as he is basing his belief on the Church’s received Tradition (Scripture and the teachings of the Fathers) and according to the teachings of the Magisterium up to that time. Once the teaching has been defined, however, then there is no question and the person must believe. Some doctrines fall under the category of being clearly heretical prior to their being clarified by the Magisterium such as the denial in the early Church that Jesus was God. Others, however, certain nuances were not so clear such as how to understand that there are no errors in Scripture as to whether that applied to the whole of Scripture or only those teachings regarding faith and morals. Once the Church defined the matter that it is heretical to believe that the writers of Scripture erred in any way since they were being inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the matter had been officially settled.

If by “before these traditions and dogmas were taught” you meant to imply that the Church did not always have the various dogmas handed down from apostolic Tradition and that the Church merely made them up later, then that would be heresy.

 

[una_fides]

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?

By “changed recently” do you mean that the Catholic Church has officially changed this teaching or that a particular bishop seems to have a wrong understanding of this teaching? Cardinal Kasper is wrong. I believe the fact that the pope has not condemned his errors could be a serious neglect but would not constitute the pope as himself defining his heresy as a dogma or official teaching of the Church.

What are the official conditions in which someone who is not a practicing Catholic could receive the sacraments? Notice first also that there must be a grave reason. I.e. a person is on his death bed, manifests his intent on receiving the sacraments, demonstrates faith in the sacrament for what it truly is and does, then the Church has recently permitted that it can be permissible to confer the sacrament to them. I think the Church’s reasoning could be that they do not know the extent of the person’s ignorance of the Catholic faith and if the person was invincibly ignorant and had perfect charity, then he could already be inside the Church through an implicit baptism of desire and his desire for the sacrament and faith in it could then even be beneficial for him if he was about to meet his maker. So while no one outside the Church can be saved, it is possible for someone invincibly ignorant who manifests perfect charity and perfect contrition toward all his sins could be saved IN the Church through an implicit baptism of desire. I think that could be the Church’s reasoning, but I personally do not understand fully why they would be given access to the sacraments since I would think the danger of a sacrilege taking place at least objectively speaking would be quite great even if the person receiving would not personally (subjectively) be guilty for the sacrilege due to his ignorance.

 

[una_fides]

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?

Interesting point. Many of those dogmas were not defined until after their schism with Rome, so I don’t know if they would necessarily be held accountable for believing those heresies per say. Any heresies they may now objectively hold would be a result of their schism.

 

[surritter]

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?

Sid, this goes back to a fundamental misunderstanding that was clearly addressed many pages ago in this thread.

It is NOT true that those outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church cannot be saved. So the question is a red herring.

 

[rinnie]

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?

You must understand what he truly said He said Because Christianitys relationship to Judiasm is complex we are trying to unite them into the church.

He was showing because we have this in commonw Rom. 11:29 3:4 Gods covenant with Israel will never be broken. 1 thess 1:9 does not apply to the Jews.

In Romans it never said GOd broke his covenant with the Jews he still loves them.

But b/c his covenant is unbroken rather his commitment to the Father namly Abraham Issac and Jacob the covenant is not EXCLUSIVE to the Jews.

THe N.T. teaches it is for the whole world Jews and Gentiles IT is now the New covenant in JEsus CHrist.

 

[surritter]

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?

Those in authority in the Catholic Church are not immune to error when it comes to disciplining their subordinates. Do you see the difference between that and the action of proclaiming a formal teaching? Please reread the posts by Una Fides.

 

[ron77nyc]

You must understand what he truly said He said Because Christianitys relationship to Judiasm is complex we are trying to unite them into the church.

He was showing because we have this in commonw Rom. 11:29 3:4 Gods covenant with Israel will never be broken. 1 thess 1:9 does not apply to the Jews.

In Romans it never said GOd broke his covenant with the Jews he still loves them.

But b/c his covenant is unbroken rather his commitment to the Father namly Abraham Issac and Jacob the covenant is not EXCLUSIVE to the Jews.

THe N.T. teaches it is for the whole world Jews and Gentiles IT is now the New covenant in JEsus CHrist.

The NT unites Jews and Gentiles who profess faith in the resurrection of Jesus. It excludes anyone trying to please God without that faith.

Romans 10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

2 Corinthians 3:15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

2 Corinthians 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

 

[ron77nyc]

If by “before these traditions and dogmas were taught” you meant to imply that the Church did not always have the various dogmas handed down from apostolic Tradition and that the Church merely made them up later, then that would be heresy.

These are additional requirements to attain salvation which didn’t exist in the beginning. They make it harder for believers in Jesus Christ to get to heaven. They form unnecessary road blocks, divisions and exclusions. As time goes by more and more is added making it nearly impossible for anyone to learn all of them before we are even able to comply with them.

 

[surritter]

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

 

[rinnie]

Sid, this goes back to a fundamental misunderstanding that was clearly addressed many pages ago in this thread.

It is NOT true that those outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church cannot be saved. So the question is a red herring.

Correct. What Cardinal Kasper is doing is trying to promote Christian unity.

He said a Ecumenical Catechism would help Catholics and the majority of Protestants an ecumenism of basics where would could Identify with eachother.

More or less look at what we have in common with eachother for a change. Then if we can reunite in what we have in common first, we will see that we have more in common than we really think. You see it on here more and more everyday.

ALot of Protestants were greatly misled by our faith. And when they get to know us, they kinda like us

 

[rinnie]

And may I add. When the Pope said there is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church, he meant it.

But many people do not understand that the CC is the living Jesus.

So when he said there is not Salvation outside of the CC another way of saying it is saying that There is no Salvation outside of Jesus Christ. ITs the exact same thing.

So anyone who would disagree him, would have to say there is salvation outside Of Jesus Christ. Many people do not understand what he says and run with it, and interpret it into what they think he says. Not what he really says.

 

[sidbrown]

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.

However, I am not sure that what they were doing did contradict Church teaching, at least as was taught at the Synod of Gangra:
The following is canon III of the Synod of Gangra, which according to Pope Symmachus was held under papal authority.
Canon III.
If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.
This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars. II., Causa XVII., Q. IV., c. xxxvij.

 

[sidbrown]

Those in authority in the Catholic Church are not immune to error when it comes to disciplining their subordinates. Do you see the difference between that and the action of proclaiming a formal teaching? Please reread the posts by Una Fides.

However, there is a question regarding the Synod of Gangra.

 

[sidbrown]

By “were taught” I’m assuming you mean “were defined” for the teachings came from Tradition; they were merely not clarified and solidified into dogmas until later in the Church’s history. Some dogmas take time to develop (not change) in order to be defined, but once they are defined, then all from that point forward would be required to believe. The Church has the power to bind and loose. If the Church has not yet defined a doctrine or settled a matter of dispute, then in some cases it may be permitted for someone to believe contrary to the position that the Church ends up taking, as long as he is basing his belief on the Church’s received Tradition (Scripture and the teachings of the Fathers) and according to the teachings of the Magisterium up to that time. Once the teaching has been defined, however, then there is no question and the person must believe. Some doctrines fall under the category of being clearly heretical prior to their being clarified by the Magisterium such as the denial in the early Church that Jesus was God. Others, however, certain nuances were not so clear such as how to understand that there are no errors in Scripture as to whether that applied to the whole of Scripture or only those teachings regarding faith and morals. Once the Church defined the matter that it is heretical to believe that the writers of Scripture erred in any way since they were being inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the matter had been officially settled.

If by “before these traditions and dogmas were taught” you meant to imply that the Church did not always have the various dogmas handed down from apostolic Tradition and that the Church merely made them up later, then that would be heresy.

But is there a change on whether or not people who openly reject one or more of the teachings of the Church are to be excluded from Holy Communion?

 

[surritter]

But is there a change on whether or not people who openly reject one or more of the teachings of the Church are to be excluded from Holy Communion?

And whatever that answer is – is this a matter of discipline or formal dogma/doctrine?

 

[whatischarity]

And may I add. When the Pope said there is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church, he meant it.

But many people do not understand that the CC is the living Jesus.

So when he said there is not Salvation outside of the CC another way of saying it is saying that There is no Salvation outside of Jesus Christ. ITs the exact same thing.

So anyone who would disagree him, would have to say there is salvation outside Of Jesus Christ. Many people do not understand what he says and run with it, and interpret it into what they think he says. Not what he really says.

Help me out here. I believe there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ because He is the one who openned the gate of Heaven and reconciled man to God. However, can I also believe that there are those who are saved through Jesus Christ although they are ignorant of Him? Further, can I believe that some who do know Jesus Christ are also saved even though they are not members of the CC because they do not see the CC as the living Jesus? [It is my understanding that the CC teaches that the answer to my 2 questions is “yes”.]

As an aside, there are many instances in the new testament in which statements are made detailing how to earn salvation. It seems that posters here rather choose to quote from Popes and councils on the topic of what is necessary for salvation and skip what is in the New Testament. Seems like this approach is only half right.

 

[whatischarity]

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

It seems to me that there are excerpts from the New Testament that deal with what is necessary for salvation and these excerpts do not include being a member of the Church. Rather these excerpts detail actions and dispositions that are necessary for Salvation. I could see someone arguing that a person could not persevere in having the dipostions and performing the actions unless they were strengthened by the graces available through the CC, but still, if the person is able to fulfill the requirements contained in scripture and still remain outside the visible, formal CC I would be hesitant to judge them as being lost. How do you reconcile the hard line you are taking on these Catholic pronouncements when compared to Sacred Scripture?

 

[surritter]

It seems to me that there are excerpts from the New Testament that deal with what is necessary for salvation and these excerpts do not include being a member of the Church. Rather these excerpts detail actions and dispositions that are necessary for Salvation. I could see someone arguing that a person could not persevere in having the dipostions and performing the actions unless they were strengthened by the graces available through the CC, but still, if the person is able to fulfill the requirements contained in scripture and still remain outside the visible, formal CC I would be hesitant to judge them as being lost. How do you reconcile the hard line you are taking on these Catholic pronouncements when compared to Sacred Scripture?

Too many people try to take a verse from Scripture and build entire religions around it. For instance: those Protestants who take Romans 10:9 and say that all you have to do is “accept Jesus” and you will be saved. But doesn’t John 6 have Jesus tell us that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to be saved? And there are many other verse that seem to prescribe one thing or another. How do we handle these?

It seems logical to say that we must do all of these things. If I say that in order to get from Dallas to Los Angeles you must go through New Mexico, does that mean that New Mexico is the only state through which you will pass? No!

To answer your specific question: while it is possible for those outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church to be saved, it would only be through God’s grace, and in spite of their ignorance (invincible or perhaps vincible). But don’t forget that the Bible does command us to be part of the Catholic Church when Jesus said that “he who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16). This was spoken to the Apostles, and of course this mission has been handed on to the successors to the Apostles through the centuries.

 

[una_fides]

However, I am not sure that what they were doing did contradict Church teaching, at least as was taught at the Synod of Gangra:
The following is canon III of the Synod of Gangra, which according to Pope Symmachus was held under papal authority.
Canon III.
If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.
This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars. II., Causa XVII., Q. IV., c. xxxvij.

I’m curious… where did you find this information? A book or online?

 

[una_fides]

But is there a change on whether or not people who openly reject one or more of the teachings of the Church are to be excluded from Holy Communion?

yep. change in discipline. not dogma.