Can the Church change its teaching?

[PeteZaHut]

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.

 

[jbelokur]

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.

What you have with your example is the difference between a theological teaching which limbo is and a dogmatic statement of faith. Theological teachings may change but dogma is ever the same, only defended and further defined as necessary…ie to combat heresy.

 

[Garyjohn2]

I know the church can be in error regarding things that are not theological/moral, and later correct itself.

I’m not sure about the theological/moral things though.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\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.\

Limbo, the place where babies who die without baptism go, was always a theological opinion (theologoumenon) and was never a matter of faith.

 

[surritter]

What you have with your example is the difference between a theological teaching which limbo is and a dogmatic statement of faith. Theological teachings may change but dogma is ever the same, only defended and further defined as necessary…ie to combat heresy.

I would still be careful about using the word “teaching” here. Limbo was a theological hypothesis that was “taught” by some folks, but it was never official Church teaching.

Basically, official Church teachings on faith and morals cannot change. Those teachings can develop or be more explicitly stated over time, if needed. Church disciplines such as celibate priests and using Latin at Mass can certainly change.

 

[jbelokur]

I would still be careful about using the word “teaching” here. Limbo was a theological hypothesis that was “taught” by some folks, but it was never official Church teaching.

Basically, official Church teachings on faith and morals cannot change. Those teachings can develop or be more explicitly stated over time, if needed. Church disciplines such as celibate priests and using Latin at Mass can certainly change.

You are correct, the above translation “theological oppinion” is more accurate.

 

[Mark77]

NO! The Truth never changes!

The disciplines change, as St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church who’s feast day is today wrote;

Tantum ergo Sacramentum
Veneremur cernui:
Et antiquum documentum
Novo cedat ritui:
Praestet fides supplementum
Sensuum defectui.

Genitori, Genitoque
Laus et jubilatio,
Salus, honor, virtus quoque
Sit et benedictio:
Procedenti ab utroque
Compar sit laudatio.
Amen.

**Down in adoration falling,
Lo! the sacred Host we hail,
Lo! o'er ancient forms departing
**Newer rites of grace prevail**;
Faith for all defects supplying,
Where the feeble senses fail.

To the everlasting Father,
And the Son Who reigns on high
With the Holy Ghost proceeding
Forth from Each eternally,
Be salvation, honor, blessing,
Might and endless majesty.
Amen.

V. Thou hast given them bread from heaven.
R. Having within it all sweetness.

V. Let us pray: O God, who in this wonderful Sacrament left us a memorial of Thy Passion: grant, we implore Thee, that we may so venerate the sacred mysteries of Thy Body and Blood, as always to be conscious of the fruit of Thy Redemption. Thou who livest and reignest forever and ever.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!**

mark

 

[ProVobis]

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?

Often there is debate on what’s infallible and what’s not. “Ex cathedra” teachings (along with the deposit of faith and certain creeds) are generally infallible. The last such teaching was pronounced in 1950 with the definition of the Assumption. Other than that, indeed the Church can teach “error” to the extent it can be changed later. Especially vulnerable are the interpretations and language of Scripture.

 

[ron77nyc]

The Church has also changed its teaching on salvation outside the church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No it has not. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church; the teaching remains the same. However, the understanding of just who is part of the Catholic Church has deepened. Therefore, while some such as Fr. Feeney mistakenly thought that it was limited only to a baptised member of the Roman/Latin/ western rite, we now know that all humanity is part of the Catholic Church even though they may not be ‘members’ of the above rite. . .

Note that "Fr. Feeney’, while a member of the Church, is neither the Pope speaking infallibly, nor the Magesterium.

 

[ron77nyc]

No it has not. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church; the teaching remains the same. However, the understanding of just who is part of the Catholic Church has deepened. Therefore, while some such as Fr. Feeney mistakenly thought that it was limited only to a baptised member of the Roman/Latin/ western rite, we now know that all humanity is part of the Catholic Church even though they may not be ‘members’ of the above rite. . .

Note that "Fr. Feeney’, while a member of the Church, is neither the Pope speaking infallibly, nor the Magesterium.

Father Feeney was repeating what Popes before him had already said.

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.”

 

[bpbasilphx]

The Church has also changed its teaching on salvation outside the church.

What this teaching means is that ANYTHING salvific flows from Christ through the Church.

This is what the Holy See was telling Fr. Feeny that he did not understand.

 

[ron77nyc]

What this teaching means is that ANYTHING salvific flows from Christ through the Church.

This is what the Holy See was telling Fr. Feeny that he did not understand.

What you’re saying here is not what the Catholic Church taught in earlier centuries. If anyone was not a formal member of the Church there was no salvation according to popes Eugene and Boniface. The quotes I posted are very clear about that. They leave no room for interpretation.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The Catholic Church can never change it’s teaching.

Christ is the Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation.

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.
27

Source: vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm

Christ revealed God perfectly and completely. The Lord Jesus entrusted the entire and complete Sacred Deposit of Faith to the Apostles, who in turn handed it down to their successors. The Catholic Church still possesses this Sacred Deposit of Faith in its complete entirety. The Church has taught the entire Apostolic faith throughout the ages without adding or subtracting anything from it. The Church can never change its teaching, it can only pass on what it has received from the Lord Jesus through the Apostles.

However throughout the ages, the Holy Spirit has helped the Church better understand the truths which make up the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

• “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”;57 it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth”.58
• “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”,59 the sacred Scriptures "grow with the one who reads them."60
• “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.61

Source: vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

Doctrines never change, but they can develop as our understanding increases over time. Once a doctrine of the faith has developed fully, it may be defined as infallible. An example of this is the Immaculate Conception. The Church, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit was gradually able to arrive at the full truth concerning the conception of the Blessed Virgin. The doctrine was always implicitly understood and believed, but over time the Holy Spirit helped us understand the doctrine in its entirety. It was only then that the Church infallibly declared and defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

There are many theological opinions about certain doctrines of the faith. Over time, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, the Church will decide whether these opinions make the truths of the doctrine more explicit.

The short answer to your question is that the doctrines of the faith never change, but as our understanding of them increases, the doctrines may develop.

 

[ron77nyc]

The Catholic Church can never change it’s teaching.

Then why did it? Here are 3 more examples of what I’m saying:

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): “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.” (Denzinger 1647)

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)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Then why did it? Here are 3 more examples of what I’m saying:

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): “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.” (Denzinger 1647)

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)

It. Didn’t. Change. Every one of those quotes even taken in snippety out of context chop paras can still be understood to be in line with the notion that all humanity is part of the Catholic Church. Because even though they are part, they can still ‘walk away’. . . . they can refuse to be saved through the Church–which as Christ’s bride is ‘one flesh’ with whom and which He has deemed as the instrument through which His salvific gift is to be given-- in many, many ways.

 

[ron77nyc]

It. Didn’t. Change. Every one of those quotes even taken in snippety out of context chop paras can still be understood to be in line with the notion that all humanity is part of the Catholic Church. Because even though they are part, they can still ‘walk away’. . . . they can refuse to be saved through the Church–which as Christ’s bride is ‘one flesh’ with whom and which He has deemed as the instrument through which His salvific gift is to be given-- in many, many ways.

What is the difference between what Father Feeney was teaching and what the popes I quoted were teaching?

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445) “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;…”

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.” **

 

[jbelokur]

What you’re saying here is not what the Catholic Church taught in earlier centuries. If anyone was not a formal member of the Church there was no salvation according to popes Eugene and Boniface. The quotes I posted are very clear about that. They leave no room for interpretation.

If you are a traditional Catholic than you should understand that it is for the Church to interpret her own teachings not individuals or groups. Dogma grounded in Scriptuire and Tradition are interpreted by the Church. What you are doing is becoming Protestant in mind.

 

[ron77nyc]

If you are a traditional Catholic than you should understand that it is for the Church to interpret her own teachings not individuals or groups. Dogma grounded in Scriptuire and Tradition are interpreted by the Church. What you are doing is becoming Protestant in mind.

Yes I am Protestant in mind because I see a very definite contradiction in papal proclamations. If popes from different eras are not together on salvation outside the church then something’s not right. Popes Eugene and Boniface are condemning Jews, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox not in communion with Rome, Protestants and those who never heard the gospel. That’s a huge difference from what is taught today.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What is the difference between what Father Feeney was teaching and what the popes I quoted were teaching?

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445) “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;…”

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 is correct. Pope Boniface too. However, while pagans, Jews, heretics etc. are ‘outside the Church" if they refuse to be part of it, the refusal is not necessarily simply because they are Jews, heretics, etc. After all, Catholics are not assured of salvation simply by ‘being’ Catholic’ and not doing a single thing otherwise; they have to actively ‘accept’ and ACT as Christ told us (sheep and goats). Thus, a Jew, heretic or schismatic who is actively living as a Catholic, obedient to the Church even if he doesn’t know or ‘accept’ the Church (usually because he has an incorrect idea of the Catholic faith/church), is not only a part of the Church, but he IS obedient to God AND he is subject and willing to be so to the Pope.