Can the Church change its teaching?

[jonpd]

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.

The Church is affirming of all people as they are created in God’s image and worthy of His love, unconditional as you say. However the Church cannot condone the “sexually active” part anymore than it can condone any sexual activity outside of a licit marriage. This is not a “nineteenth century” morality but is one that goes back to the foundation of Christianity and beyond to our Jewish predecessors.

 

[Dempsey1919]

As I said previously, anyone who is interested in this doctrine of the faith should read the following book:

amazon.com/Salvation-Outside-Church-Catholic-Response/dp/1592440088/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3

This book will answer all of your questions and you will see how this doctrine has not changed, but has developed over time. Read the book if you want to know about this doctrine.

 

[rep140]

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.

The writings from the Council of Florence state in no uncertain terms that Jews are going to hell. Contrast that to Lumen Gentium stating that Jews were chosen by God and God does not brake a promise. I think that the Church today is doing what people have always tried to do, i.e. develope an understanding of God. It is no different than the Old Testament. It is not until The Book of Wisdom that you see the concept of eternal life in heaven.

 

[surritter]

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.

You’re right on the first point (the cause of his excommunication) but it is NOT allowed to say that anyone who is not a formal member of the Roman Catholic Church is going to hell. Not only is that going against the thinking of the Church, it just plain doesn’t make sense, particularly for peoples who have not had the benefit of even hearing about the formal institution of the Church.
And I don’t think any of this is defined dogma.

 

[ron77nyc]

The writings from the Council of Florence state in no uncertain terms that Jews are going to hell. Contrast that to Lumen Gentium stating that Jews were chosen by God and God does not brake a promise. I think that the Church today is doing what people have always tried to do, i.e. develope an understanding of God. It is no different than the Old Testament. It is not until The Book of Wisdom that you see the concept of eternal life in heaven.

I can accept the idea of a growing and developing understanding of God and truth but my question is this: Did the Church have the fullness of truth at the Council of Florence and was Pope Eugene truly representing Christ on earth?

 

[rep140]

I can accept the idea of a growing and developing understanding of God and truth but my question is this: Did the Church have the fullness of truth at the Council of Florence and was Pope Eugene truly representing Christ on earth?

A representative is exactly that, a representative, but not the real deal. IMO Pius IX showed his fallibility by declaring the concept of infallibility. Just look at his Syllabus of Errors. I believe that the Church represents Christ on earth and that anyone (Catholic or not) who achieves salvation does so through Christ’s saving action.

 

[una_fides]

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.

The Church has infallibly defined the following:
Pope Gregory X, *Council of Lyons II, *1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)
There can be no question that infants that die in a state of original sin only will go to hell. St. Thomas Aquinas understood there to be varying degrees of hell and the highest level was for those of infants that died without baptism. He concluded that because they did not have the capacity to attain the beatific vision that they would live there in perfect bliss unknowing of the loss of heaven and unharmed by the fires themselves. Such was then and still is a viable theological speculation. One which I personally still believe.

The Church recently put out a non-binding theological document discussing the teaching on infants the die without baptism. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html The document repeatedly mentions that the reason the question was raised and discussed is that many people have worried about the states of their unbaptized children that have died, and the Church intentionally in order to placate them was seeking for another possible explanation. For 2000 years, the Church has approached divine revelation as trying to discover what has been revealed and accepting those teachings as being handed on and believed throughout the centuries. In this case, what I found particularly disturbing, was that this document instead openly states that its intention is to try to discern if other possibilities could exist in order to give consolation to the many people that worry about such.

Interestingly, this document traces the history of beliefs on the eternal destiny of these infants and in such demonstrates that the Church and Catholics never once believed or taught that infants that died without baptism could possibly be saved. In fact, the only ones, as the document records, that taught such as a possibility were heretics such as the Pelagians! This document in reaching its conclusion does not provide the heretical explanation as the Pelagians do, but it does reach the same sort of conclusion in a round about way. The document explains that there can be a possibility for the salvation of these infants basing itself on a Scripture verse that says that God wills for all men to be saved and therefore provides to each enough grace to be saved. In the case of these infants, it says, they did not have the possibility–overlooking the fact that someone could have baptized them–and it concludes therefore that ti could be possible that God could somehow apart from the sacrament cleanse them from original sin in a way completely unknown to us. God has not provided any revelation whatsoever regarding any other way to be saved than through baptism, yet the document concludes that it could be a possibility and therefore there can be hope. The document, however, does not come near to adequately addressing the verse in Scripture that states that unless someone is born “of water and of the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:3-7). Regardless, this document is not binding as to one having to believe that it’s possible for those infants to be saved apart from baptism. It’s pure theological speculation, as God has not given us revelation in this regard. Nevertheless, one must believe and agree with the infallible declaration I quoted above. The Church has never infallibly ruled to my knowledge that there is no other possible way to be cleansed from original sin apart from the sacrament of baptism (at least by desire or blood). The Church has, however, consistently taught apart from this sacrament there is no remedy but to my knowledge no infallible definition has been attached.

Hope this lengthy analysis helps. (I admit that I have not read through this thread so if any of this information has already been stated, I apologize for any redundancy.)

 

[una_fides]

You’re right on the first point (the cause of his excommunication) but it is NOT allowed to say that anyone who is not a formal member of the Roman Catholic Church is going to hell. Not only is that going against the thinking of the Church, it just plain doesn’t make sense, particularly for peoples who have not had the benefit of even hearing about the formal institution of the Church.
And I don’t think any of this is defined dogma.

Here is the Church’s pre-Vatican II conclusion regarding the matter on Feeney’s teaching:

           LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE

From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20)…
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. …
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion.
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (Denzinger, n. 801).

 

[una_fides]

You’re right on the first point (the cause of his excommunication) but it is NOT allowed to say that anyone who is not a formal member of the Roman Catholic Church is going to hell. Not only is that going against the thinking of the Church, it just plain doesn’t make sense, particularly for peoples who have not had the benefit of even hearing about the formal institution of the Church.
And I don’t think any of this is defined dogma.

I compiled a list of the Church’s pronouncements on this matter (NSOC) throughout her history: no-salvation-outside-the-church.blogspot.com/ Hope this helps. I hope to soon include a section on Vatican II teachings and contrasting them and attempting to reconcile them with what has been taught for 2000 years prior.

 

[ron77nyc]

The Church has infallibly defined the following:… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)
[/INDENT]There can be no question that infants that die in a state of original sin only will go to hell.

Interestingly, this document traces the history of beliefs on the eternal destiny of these infants and in such demonstrates that the Church and Catholics never once believed or taught that infants that died without baptism could possibly be saved…

Nevertheless, one must believe and agree with the infallible declaration I quoted above. The Church has never infallibly ruled to my knowledge that there is no other possible way to be cleansed from original sin apart from the sacrament of baptism (at least by desire or blood). The Church has, however, consistently taught apart from this sacrament there is no remedy but to my knowledge no infallible definition has been attached.

Hope this lengthy analysis helps. (I admit that I have not read through this thread so if any of this information has already been stated, I apologize for any redundancy.)

How could the Church discuss the Feenyite position and conclude that it would be unfair and unmerciful for God to condemn a person who has never heard the gospel and then condemn an innocent child who never heard the gospel? If unbaptized children go to everlasting separation from God without baptism then why aren’t priests in hospitals baptizing infants at birth? Why aren’t parents instructed to baptize their own children at birth?

 

[PeteZaHut]

A few other points that I hope can be answered by someone who knows more than I do:
-did the church used to consider protestantism heresy? I assume it now doesn’t
-can a Catholic now marry a Protestant when that didn’t used to be so?

 

[surritter]

A few other points that I hope can be answered by someone who knows more than I do:
-did the church used to consider protestantism heresy? I assume it now doesn’t
-can a Catholic now marry a Protestant when that didn’t used to be so?

Protestantism is a broad term. But they do subscribe to heretical teachings, such as sola scriptura. So for the most part you shouldn’t make your assumption – it’s just that the Church is not so vocal about pointing fingers and saying “heretic”!

I believe that Catholics have always been able to marry Protestants, with permission (i.e., the non-Catholic party must agree to allow children to be raised Catholic; and if they want to get married in a Protestant church, that requires a dispensation). It’s just that the permission/dispensation is easier to get nowadays.

 

[surritter]

How could the Church discuss the Feenyite position and conclude that it would be unfair and unmerciful for God to condemn a person who has never heard the gospel and then condemn an innocent child who never heard the gospel? If unbaptized children go to everlasting separation from God without baptism then why aren’t priests in hospitals baptizing infants at birth? Why aren’t parents instructed to baptize their own children at birth?

But the Church doesn’t condemn those innocent children. They may or may not go to heaven – we just don’t know. The post above (six prior) quoted Pope Eugene IV: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

But I think it is faulty to say that “There can be no question that infants that die in a state of original sin only will go to hell.”

That conclusion is a problem because – while those stuck in original sin are indeed separated from God – who are we to say that God doesn’t intervene and wipe away that original sin on His own? It was Thomas Aquinas who said that “God is not bound by the sacraments.”

So we have hope that in some mysterious way, those innocent babies can see heaven. This does not contradict Pope Eugene’s statement. But where a literalist reading of that statement sees babies kept out of heaven, the actual statement does not definitively say that everyone who dies without the benefit of baptism MUST be in the state of original sin. It’s just that they lack the normative way – and the only one we know of – to wipe away original sin.

The reason that the Church doesn’t want babies baptized willy-nilly is because it requires actual faith of the person (or the parents, by proxy). So baptism is not mere magic or superstition, but also forms the foundation of a life in Christ that should be nurtured and grow.

 

[ServantofMary]

You’re right on the first point (the cause of his excommunication) but it is NOT allowed to say that anyone who is not a formal member of the Roman Catholic Church is going to hell.

Actually, it is allowed. When the Sisters of Saint Benedict Center, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Still River, MA (who are followers of Father Feeney) were canonically regularized in the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, they were not required to reject any of Father Feeney’s teachings. They were asked to understand the letter from the Holy Office dated August 8, 1949 (the letter that Una Fides posted above), but they were not asked to accept it. And they asked to make a Profession of Faith. Nothing else.

In fact, the Sisters of Saint Benedict Center, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary still teach, defend, and promote the strict “Feeneyite” interpretation of “Outside the Church there is no Salvation,” and they do it with full the approval of the Church.

Rev. Lawrence A. Deery, J.C.L., Vicar for Canonical Affairs of the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts wrote in a letter on May 4, 1988: “In our discussion with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine [referring to “Outside the Church there is no Salvation”] should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views.”

(Page 1 of the letter, Page 2 of the letter)

 

[ron77nyc]

But the Church doesn’t condemn those innocent children. They may or may not go to heaven – we just don’t know…
But I think it is faulty to say that “There can be no question that infants that die in a state of original sin only will go to hell.”

That conclusion is a problem because – while those stuck in original sin are indeed separated from God – who are we to say that God doesn’t intervene and wipe away that original sin on His own? It was Thomas Aquinas who said that “God is not bound by the sacraments.”

So we have hope that in some mysterious way, those innocent babies can see heaven…

I agree 100% but that is not what the Church has always taught. If we just don’t know the fate of an unbaptized child then that’s what should have been taught from the beginning.

Another change in teaching is the fate of people who take their own life. There was no hope in that situation at all. Now there is. It’s another we just don’t know.

 

[PJM]

=PeteZaHut;6223293]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.

Dear friend in Christ,

GREAT QUESTION.

Neither defined Doctrine or Dogma can be chnaged. What can change is gaining a “fuller understanding” of that position.

---

I do not beleive that the Church has redefind this issue***. There is wide spread HOPE in God’s Mercy, and many think that in Divine Justice God will find a place for these Holy Innocents in His Bosum. But we simply do not know for sure.

I beleive that holding on to This Hope in God’s Mercy in this reguard is permitted, even encouraged.

 

[ron77nyc]

Dear friend in Christ,

GREAT QUESTION.

Neither defined Doctrine or Dogma can be chnaged. What can change is gaining a “fuller understanding” of that position.

---

I do not beleive that the Church has redefind this issue***. There is wide spread HOPE in God’s Mercy, and many think that in Divine Justice God will find a place for these Holy Innocents in His Bosum. But we simply do not know for sure.

I beleive that holding on to This Hope in God’s Mercy in this reguard is permitted, even encouraged.

Wouldn’t a papal encyclical or an ecumenical council have been a good time to give people hope on these issues rather not leave out the hopeful half of the message? If Augustine said “God is not bound by His sacraments” then those who came later should have known about that one.

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

The reason that the Church doesn’t want babies baptized willy-nilly is because it requires actual faith of the person (or the parents, by proxy). So baptism is not mere magic or superstition, but also forms the foundation of a life in Christ that should be nurtured and grow.

The fact remains that the Church definately cannot tell us that an unbaptized infant does not suffer in hell. It says that there is reason for hope but that’s all. For this reason, I truely do not understand why the Church would frown on an infant being Baptized as soon as it is born. Baptism is the one and only thing an infant needs to get into Heaven. Why would it be kept from them for any time at all?

 

[bpbasilphx]

\The fact remains that the Church definately cannot tell us that an unbaptized infant does not suffer in hell.\

Or does suffer in hell–don’t forget. The Church can’t–and won’t–say that, either.

 

[una_fides]

How could the Church discuss the Feenyite position and conclude that it would be unfair and unmerciful for God to condemn a person who has never heard the gospel and then condemn an innocent child who never heard the gospel? If unbaptized children go to everlasting separation from God without baptism then why aren’t priests in hospitals baptizing infants at birth? Why aren’t parents instructed to baptize their own children at birth?

Hi Ron, Thanks for the food for thought. I think the underlined part of your quote above needs to be clarified as a lot of people think that just because someone has never heard the gospel therefore he would be saved as if he is not responsible or culpable for any of his actions. In reality, the souls that never hear the gospel are in a very bad condition not only because they have not been regenerated in receiving sanctifying grace but also because they all commit sins all the time for which they are guilty and for which they deserve eternal punishment. In discussing the Feenyite position, the Church concluded, as I posted above, that souls that are invincibly ignorant must also make acts of perfect contrition, which we know is animated by perfect charity, and such persons must also have supernatural faith. I do not personally understand how it could be possible for a person who has never been infused with the supernatural theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, could make acts of perfect charity and have supernatural faith. The Church also taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent that very few make acts of perfect contrition, and if God left it at that standard that “very few persons would be saved,” and for this reason, the Church concluded he instituted the sacrament of confession.

Regarding children, they are not innocent. They all participate in Adam’s original sin by inheriting the nature of Adam. They are born “children of the devil” and “enemies of God” in need of God and in need of salvation. They are born empty and their souls are born dead.

Also priests and parents are instructed to baptize children themselves at birth or at any time for any infant necessary even against the will of the parents of others when the infant is in danger of death.
Here is the Code of Canon Law:
868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:
1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;
2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.
§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM

Hope this helps.