Can the Church change its teaching?

[bpbasilphx]

\Especially if you study them in the language of the Church, which is officially Latin.\

The language of the LATIN Church is officially Latin, but the Catholic Church is bigger than just the Latin Church.

 

[ron77nyc]

The doctrine of “No Salvation Outside the Church” has undergone a legitimate process of development over time. This is still a doctrine of the Church but our understanding of it has increased over time.

You seem to be saying that all popes before Vatican II didn’t understand how God could save a non-Catholic.

I’m not theologian, but has it occurred to anyone to investigate the matter further? Not every encyclical or bull is infallible teaching. Are there council statements on the matter that seem to take the Feeneyite side? Did the Early Fathers make such statements?

The four I quoted all take the Feenyite side and they all qualify as infallible statements according to the 4 tests of infallibility.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

**THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILITY There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church. **

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 - 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. …Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): “[The most Holy 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.”

 

[surritter]

You seem to be saying that all popes before Vatican II didn’t understand how God could save a non-Catholic.

I can’t speak for Dempsey, but your reply here is actually on target. Yet it doesn’t prove anything.
It is certain that earlier popes didn’t understand a lot of things. So what? That is the nature of “development of doctrine.” At one time Christians probably thought that those martyred before they were baptized could not be saved. But the doctrines of “baptism by blood” and “baptism by desire” were revealed to the Church (even though – to this day – we still don’t understand the “how” part).

 

[ron77nyc]

I can’t speak for Dempsey, but your reply here is actually on target. Yet it doesn’t prove anything.
It is certain that earlier popes didn’t understand a lot of things. So what?

They’re supposed to have the gift of infallibility which protects them from teaching error. If Fr. Feeney was in error then they were also in error.

 

[surritter]

They’re supposed to have the gift of infallibility which protects them from teaching error. If Fr. Feeney was in error then they were also in error.

I said that those early popes didn’t understand HOW God saves a non-Catholic. I didn’t say that they believed God CAN’T save a non-Catholic. That is your assertion.

 

[surritter]

If Fr. Feeney was in error then they were also in error.

When Fr. Feeney adamantly taught that people not visibly in union with the Catholic Church could not be saved, he was excommunicated. Here’s the irony: At that point, he had to hope that he was wrong!
This is because, if his beliefs were correct, then he knew he was destined for hell, since he was no longer in visible union. So he either had to be wrong, or he was unsaved.

Not a situation I’d like to put myself into!

 

[ron77nyc]

I said that those early popes didn’t understand HOW God saves a non-Catholic. I didn’t say that they believed God CAN’T save a non-Catholic. That is your assertion.

It’s not my assertion. It’s the assertion of many popes. They said very definitely and absolutely that only Catholics will go to heaven.

 

[surritter]

It’s not my assertion. It’s the assertion of many popes. They said very definitely and absolutely that only Catholics will go to heaven.

Sorry – I meant that you assert that their words meant that one must be a visible, registered member of the institution of the Catholic Church. As has been shown, to be within the Catholic Church can be seen in a wider definition.

 

[ron77nyc]

When Fr. Feeney adamantly taught that people not visibly in union with the Catholic Church could not be saved, he was excommunicated. Here’s the irony: At that point, he had to hope that he was wrong!

Here is the irony I’m talking about: From 1200 AD to 1600 AD give or take a few centuries, he would have been commended for his good work.

 

[ron77nyc]

Sorry – I meant that you assert that their words meant that one must be a visible, registered member of the institution of the Catholic Church. As has been shown, to be within the Catholic Church can be seen in a wider definition.

Changing the definition of what it is to be a Catholic some 500 years after the Protestant Reformation is like moving the clock back when you show up late for work.

 

[surritter]

So if the Church is so susceptible to teaching error, why do you claim to be Catholic, and hold to its beliefs? It seems illogical – you are saying there is a precedent which proves that the gates of hell have prevailed against it, yet you are staking your eternal salvation on what it teaches.

 

[ron77nyc]

So if the Church is so susceptible to teaching error, why do you claim to be Catholic, and hold to its beliefs? It seems illogical – you are saying there is a precedent which proves that the gates of hell have prevailed against it, yet you are staking your eternal salvation on what it teaches.

I’ve been to other churches. They are all susceptible to error. I stake my eternal salvation on faith in Jesus Christ.

This is not about me and what I believe. It’s what the Church has said. The popes I quoted said you must be in submission to the Roman Pontiff and you must be a formal member of the Catholic Church or you will not have eternal life.

 

[Onegin]

So if the Church is so susceptible to teaching error, why do you claim to be Catholic, and hold to its beliefs? It seems illogical – you are saying there is a precedent which proves that the gates of hell have prevailed against it, yet you are staking your eternal salvation on what it teaches.

The gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church but there is nothing saying that the Church won’t go through some very dark and troubling times. There have been Popes, Antipopes and sometimes two Popes at once over the course of Church history. There has been much confusion, many times when leaders of the Church chose to follow modern trends or adopt a heretical view. At a time, Catholics had no idea who the true Pope was. Yet the Church still continues to exist to this day.

I reject the notion that interpreting the phrase “the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church” must somehow mean that at all places, at all times, the visible leaders of the Church will behave and act 100% in line with Catholic tradition. This is humanity’s flaw and an outcropping of many misunderstanding of the doctrine of Papal infallibility.

 

[surritter]

The gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church but there is nothing saying that the Church won’t go through some very dark and troubling times. There have been Popes, Antipopes and sometimes two Popes at once over the course of Church history. There has been much confusion, many times when leaders of the Church chose to follow modern trends or adopt a heretical view. At a time, Catholics had no idea who the true Pope was. Yet the Church still continues to exist to this day.

I reject the notion that interpreting the phrase “the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church” must somehow mean that at all places, at all times, the visible leaders of the Church will behave and act 100% in line with Catholic tradition. This is humanity’s flaw and an outcropping of many misunderstanding of the doctrine of Papal infallibility.

For the most part I agree with you. But recall that the recent thrust of this thread is that earlier popes had made statements that infallibly stated that non-Catholics have no hope for salvation. This is Ron’s claim – a claim which needs to be disproved. I think that posts #36 and 39 provide the best responses.

 

[ron77nyc]

For the most part I agree with you. But recall that the recent thrust of this thread is that earlier popes had made statements that infallibly stated that non-Catholics have no hope for salvation. This is Ron’s claim – a claim which needs to be disproved. I think that posts #36 and 39 provide the best responses.

I’m not making this stuff up. I’m getting my information from Catholic sources.

jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html

“If you see a pope say “we define” or “I define,” it is a signal that he is making a definition and thus exercising the Church’s gift of infallibility. (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)”

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

New Advents says that an ecumenical council approved by the pope is an organ of infallibility.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Ecumenical councils
1 An ecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provincial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically constituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church, it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and co-operation of its head. Hence:

• the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For ecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present.
• As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required.
• Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS).

2 That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope?

 

[ron77nyc]

I’m not making this stuff up. I’m getting my information from Catholic sources.

jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html

“If you see a pope say “we define” or “I define,” it is a signal that he is making a definition and thus exercising the Church’s gift of infallibility. (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)”

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

New Advent says that an ecumenical council approved by the pope is an organ of infallibility.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Ecumenical councils
1 An ecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provincial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically constituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church, it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and co-operation of its head. Hence:

• the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For ecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present.
• As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required.
• Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS).

2 That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope?

 

[caileanlael]

There is much in church teaching which can be affirming of lesbian, gay and bisexual Catholics. Attempts to impose a nineteenth century morality of sexual behaviour are not convincing and are demeaning to the church and to its faithful. At the heart of Christianity and specifically Catholicism we find the unconditional love of God for all of his creation, and a repeated theme of reaching out to those who have been marginalised or victimised. Lesbian, gay and bisexual Catholics are ready to take their place as much loved members of the Catholic church and to engage with the real issues which face religion and humanity in the twenty first century, in which Catholics of all sexual orientations, whether sexually active or celibate, can celebrate our togetherness.

 

[Hesychios]

…

 

[jbelokur]

There is much in church teaching which can be affirming of lesbian, gay and bisexual Catholics. Attempts to impose a nineteenth century morality of sexual behaviour are not convincing and are demeaning to the church and to its faithful. At the heart of Christianity and specifically Catholicism we find the unconditional love of God for all of his creation, and a repeated theme of reaching out to those who have been marginalised or victimised. Lesbian, gay and bisexual Catholics are ready to take their place as much loved members of the Catholic church and to engage with the real issues which face religion and humanity in the twenty first century, in which Catholics of all sexual orientations, whether sexually active or celibate, can celebrate our togetherness.

What bearing does this comment have on this thread?

 

[ServantofMary]

When Fr. Feeney adamantly taught that people not visibly in union with the Catholic Church could not be saved, he was excommunicated.

Actually, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, and not for his teaching. The interesting thing is that he was reconciled to the Catholic Church in 1972 without being required to recant his teaching on “Outside the Church there is no Salvation.” So obviously, his strict interpretation of this dogma is allowed in the Church.