Can the Church change its teaching?

[surritter]

When a pope makes an ex-cathedra statement he doesn’t say “This can never change” before and after he says it. If he did there would be more than 2 that all Catholics, including the bishops would be in agreement with.

By definition, an “ex cathedra” statement IS infallible and therefore can never change! Recall that Vatican I spelled this out, and the way it is given by the pope essentially contains the statement “this can never change.” Perhaps you’re mistaking any statement by the pope for the specific “ex cathedra” types.

 

[ron77nyc]

By definition, an “ex cathedra” statement IS infallible and therefore can never change! Recall that Vatican I spelled this out, and the way it is given by the pope essentially contains the statement “this can never change.” Perhaps you’re mistaking any statement by the pope for the specific “ex cathedra” types.

Is this an infallible statement?

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

 

[surritter]

I’d have to see the larger context. Vatican I only spelled out its definitions in the 1800s. But I’ve explained before how that particular quote is to be understood. It’s not the narrow definition you are thinking of – someone can be subject to the Supreme Pontiff without knowing it!

 

[Akini]

I have read through most of the posts pertaining to the above matter. One thing I found to be crystal clear is that the Church has changed some of her teachings. I don’t want to enumerate these changes but I can’t understand why some people do not want to admit that there have been changes and changes still going on in the Church’s teachings. There are no documents about these changes, but for those of us who were born in the 1950s, know very well that many changes have taken place. There’s no doubt about that! One thing which annoys me so much is that these days we find protestants lecturers teaching in catholic seminaries and vice versa. That is why these new priests coming out from our seminaries can not tell which are the true catholic teachings.

 

[ron77nyc]

Is this an infallible statement?

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

I’d have to see the larger context. Vatican I only spelled out its definitions in the 1800s. But I’ve explained before how that particular quote is to be understood. It’s not the narrow definition you are thinking of – someone can be subject to the Supreme Pontiff without knowing it!

What about those NOT subject to the Roman Pontiff?
According to what the Church teaches now Unam Sanctum is an infallible statement.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILIY 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. “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” not only passes all four tests, but it is manifest that the Pope deliberately phrased the teaching to ensure that this would be obvious.

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.)”

If one pope says: “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” and the popes after 1964 say that those not subject to the Roman Pontiff will attain salvation (Jews, Muslims & Protestants) then we must be subject to our pope today or we will not attain salvation. I don’t really think so but that’s where this line of reasoning leads us.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Being Jewish, Muslim, or even atheist does not necessarily ‘remove’ the person from being subject to the Pope, my friend.

After all, just because a person refuses to recognize God doesn’t mean that God ‘doesn’t exist’ for that person. Just because a person doesn’t KNOW God doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist for that person (until he DOES know Him).

So why on earth would an individual’s refusal to recognize the sovereignity of the Pope, or his lack of knowledge that he is sovereign, make it look as though he doesn’t ‘have to be’ under the authority? He does and he is, whether he knows it or ‘wants it’ or even thinks he can accept or reject it.

 

[Akini]

If one pope says: “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” and the popes after 1964 say that those not subject to the Roman Pontiff will attain salvation (Jews, Muslims & Protestants) then we must be subject to our pope today or we will not attain salvation. I don’t really think so but that’s where this line of reasoning leads us.

Isn’t that a change in the Church’s official teaching? I think it is.

 

[ron77nyc]

Being Jewish, Muslim, or even atheist does not necessarily ‘remove’ the person from being subject to the Pope, my friend

.
They don’t go to mass or confession and their not baptized. How is that submission to the pope?

After all, just because a person refuses to recognize God doesn’t mean that God ‘doesn’t exist’ for that person. Just because a person doesn’t KNOW God doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist for that person (until he DOES know Him).

So why on earth would an individual’s refusal to recognize the sovereignity of the Pope, or his lack of knowledge that he is sovereign, make it look as though he doesn’t ‘have to be’ under the authority? He does and he is, whether he knows it or ‘wants it’ or even thinks he can accept or reject it.

What do you think about Billy Graham? He’s not subject to the pope. Do you think God will save him?

 

[PJM]

=ServantofMary;6248120]So? Where does it say that the pope is infallible in every single thing that he says?

From th curent Code of Canon Law

Can. 747 §1 It is the obligation and inherent right of the Church, independent of any human authority, to preach the Gospel to all peoples, using for this purpose even its own means of social communication, for it is to the Church that Christ the Lord entrusted the deposit of faith, so that by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, it might conscientiously guard revealed truth, more intimately penetrate it, and faithfully proclaim and expound it. §2 The Church has the right always and everywhere to proclaim moral principles, even in respect of the social order, and to make judgements about any human matter in so far as this is required by fundamental human rights or the salvation of souls.

Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.
**
§2** It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.

**Can. 749 §1 In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ’s faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals. **

**
§2 **The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.

§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.

**Can. 750 **Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.
**
Can. 754 **All Christ’s faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which lawful ecclesiastical authority issues for the purpose of proposing doctrine or of proscribing erroneous opinions; this is particularly the case of those published by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of Bishops.

 

[StillWondering]

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.
Pius IX (Instruction 20 June 1866 AD). J.F.MAXWELL, ‘The Development of Catholic Doctrine Concerning Slavery’, World Jurist 11 (1969-70) pp.306-307…

Dear Ron,

I’ve been trying to check the University of California Library system, the worldwide system linked to it, and the library of Congress for the book by Maxwell, but I’m not having luck. Can you get the ISBN number? In addition I tried to search for the document where Maxwell quoted Pius IX from, but had no luck on the Vatican site. Would you give me a link for that so I can read the context of the document by Pius IX?

I did found this book each time I search for Maxwell’s book (the local call number is from the Library of Congress):

LC Control No.: 2002009476
LCCN Permalink: lccn.loc.gov/2002009476
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Main Title: Change in official Catholic moral teachings / edited by Charles E. Curran.
Published/Created: New York : Paulist Press, c2003.
Description: x, 336 p. ; 21 cm.
ISBN: 0809141345 (pbk.)

 

[StillWondering]

.
What do you think about Billy Graham? He’s not subject to the pope. Do you think God will save him?

Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have everlasting life. Since Billy Graham probably did not do so, will God save him?

 

[surritter]

Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have everlasting life. Since Billy Graham probably did not do so, will God save him?

Again, folks, we don’t know every possible way that God operates. So while Jesus’s words are true, and those of us given the gift of faith must abide by them, God can help fulfill that requirement in ways that we know not. It’s just like the suicide thing – someone puts a gun to his own head, but for all we know, God reaches out to give that person one last chance for mercy in the millisecond between when the bullet enters the head and death.

Of course we can’t be presumptuous – we must evangelize everyone to know the importance of the Eucharist – but we can never definitively say that someone is in hell just because they never partook of the Eucharist.

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

Please explain this. Does this say that the assent of faith is not required for an infalible teaching?

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

I have read through most of the posts pertaining to the above matter. One thing I found to be crystal clear is that the Church has changed some of her teachings. I don’t want to enumerate these changes but I can’t understand why some people do not want to admit that there have been changes and changes still going on in the Church’s teachings. There are no documents about these changes, but for those of us who were born in the 1950s, know very well that many changes have taken place. There’s no doubt about that! One thing which annoys me so much is that these days we find protestants lecturers teaching in catholic seminaries and vice versa. That is why these new priests coming out from our seminaries can not tell which are the true catholic teachings.

The problem faced is that if the Church is wrong on one infallible doctrine, everything else the Church says can be questioned individually. This would basically be Protestantism since the Church would not be giving the last word.

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

No…I don’t think so but we can’t be sure because no one knows what the infallible teachings are. All Catholics are required to accept all infallible teachings but the the Church has never put them in writing under the title: “infallible teachings” or “ex-cathedra statements.” When a pope makes an ex-cathedra statement he doesn’t say “This can never change” before and after he says it. If he did there would be more than 2 that all Catholics, including the bishops would be in agreement with.

I have struggled with this question for quite some time. It is somewhat rediculous to say the law must be followed but we can’t tell you what it is. We wouldn’t have all these questions about what is and what isn’t infallible if the Church would just tell us. But, evidentally it cannot. This leads me to some degree of doubt.

 

[ron77nyc]

Dear Ron,

I’ve been trying to check the University of California Library system, the worldwide system linked to it, and the library of Congress for the book by Maxwell, but I’m not having luck. Can you get the ISBN number?

I can’t find the entire document of Pius IX either. All I can find is the Australian Australian EJournal of Theology which documents the origin of teachings on slavery and its progression to present day teachings.

dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_3/Curran_Koszarycz.htm

"Here is an example by analogy: In his writings St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) defended slavery as instituted by God in punishment for sin, and sees the buying and selling of human beings as justified, as being part of the ‘right of nations’ and natural law.

Even as late as 1866, we see the Holy Office, in an instruction signed by Pope Pius IX, declaring:
Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.
It was not until 1888 that Leo XIII condemns slavery in more general terms, and supports the anti-slavery movement. [11]
By the time of the Second Vatican Council we see a vigorous defence of basic human rights and the denouncement of all violations of human integrity, including slavery. [12] "

Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have everlasting life. Since Billy Graham probably did not do so, will God save him?

My own personal opinion is God is not like the soup nazi from Jerry Seinfeld. I believe He will save whoever He wants to save and no one else is capable of judging someone else’s eternal destiny.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

.
They don’t go to mass or confession and their not baptized. How is that submission to the pope?
I think you’re trying to be deliberately obtuse, ron, and you know it. So you tell me, these same people don’t recognize Christ, do they?. Are they subject to Christ? Of course they are. They don’t ‘acknowledge’ or believe it but they are subject to Him. He is Lord of **all of us, not just the ones who call Him by Name as Lord. **If subject to Christ, they are subject to the man whom Christ appointed as His vicar by definition. QED

What do you think about Billy Graham? He’s not subject to the pope. Do you think God will save him?

I already told you (not that you needed telling because you have been told this before but prefer to ignore it as it neatly ‘cuts away’ the ground you argue from); yes, Mr. Graham is subject to the Pope just as he is subject to Christ. (Duh). As to whether I think God will save him, God gives every one of us the saving grace of His salvation; it’s up to us to accept or reject Him. So it’s up to Mr. Graham as to whether he will accept God’s offer of salvation.

 

[surritter]

He knew. Ratzinger was friends with Brother Roger or the Taize community (the Protestant in question). In fact, you can do a search and read what he said about Brother Roger when he learned of his death a few years back.

OK – that’s why I wrote the first part of the sentence: Every action by a pope is not a declaration of infallible teaching, even if he did know.

 

[CMatt25]

Every action of the pope is not necessarily the best one (and I’ll speculate that he probably didn’t know the person was Protestant).

Gee, Matt, what other things would YOU like to see changed?

If only I had chosen the priesthood, I might have been elected bishop, then cardinal, and elected Pope by the cardinals, then you would have seen

 

[CMatt25]

See the photo of Bill Clinton receiving the Holy Eucharist.

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A056rcClintonCommunion.htm

March 29, 1998

Pro-abortion and Protestant President Bill Clinton received the Holy Eucharist at Queen of the World Church in Johannesburg, South Africa.

The priest who gave the Communion alleged he was just applying the latest directive of ecumenism that came from the South African Bishops Conference.

According to Catholic catechism, this constitutes a sacrilege, but it is an action becoming increasingly more frequent in the post-Vatican II era. Pope John Paul II, for instance, gave Holy Communion to the Episcopalian prime minister Tony Blair at the Vatican in February 2004.

Thank you. I don’t know how I missed these occuring. Are you saying JP2 committed sacrilege then?