Can the Church change its teaching?

[Akini]

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.

So Tantum Ergo, are you implying that Mr. Graham will not be saved unless he subjects himself to the Pope? I think, there is a way for people like Mr. Graham. This way is spelt out clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 847and 848 (see also 840-843). These are some of the changes that have taken place since Vatican II. Based on these paragraphs, one can be certain that people like Mr. Graham are definitely assured of being saved. This of course, I dread very much, because the teaching that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is becoming very shaky.

 

[sidbrown]

One thing I found to be crystal clear is that the Church has changed some of her teachings. .

This is my opinion also. Some of the teachings have changed. For example, it is now acceptable for the priest to administer Holy Communion to people of Eastern Churches who openly deny some of then infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. I don;t think that this was the teaching 100 years ago, was it?

 

[sidbrown]

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.

How is a Jew or a Muslim subject to the Pope?

 

[sidbrown]

"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] "
.

I think that the teaching on slavery has been changed and slaves are no longer required to be subject to their masters. This would apply for example, for those young women taken into slavery even today and it is not wrong for them to refuse to be subject to their masters and to flee. This is my opinion on it.

 

[ron77nyc]

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).

Being subject to Christ is not the same as being subject to the pope. The pope wants you to accept all the Church teaches. If Protestants did that we wouldn’t call them Protestants. We would call them Roman Catholics.

 

[ron77nyc]

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

I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion.

I just read the post again. Yes. The pope committed a sacriledge according to Church law but he’s the pope so he’s accountable to no one but God so God will probably forgive him.

 

[una_fides]

Hope for the unbaptized was introduced in the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Doesn’t that make it the official teaching of the church?

V2 was not dogmatic by its own intention and admission. Its purpose was solely pastoral in that its purpose was to state the Church’s constant teachings in ways more easily understood and accepted by modern man (who btw is characterized by selfishness and pride and rejects authority). According to Paul VI no new dogmas were introduced and the council did not invoke infallibility but taught according to the Church’s ordinary magisterium. Paul VI also began the Church’s “medicine of mercy” rather than harshness or judgment, so from that point the Church has seemed to try to explain things by placing a very great degree and emphasis on God’s mercy (sometimes seemingly even to the extent of undermining and downplaying his justice).

V2 taught a possibility for the salvation of unbaptized infants that can give us “hope.” But his hope should not be confused with the theological virtue of hope but would rather be more consistent with the idea that “I hope it doesn’t snow today” (btw I’m on the east coast and we are about to get bombarded with several feeeet of snow! not that this makes a perfect analogy but the hope need not be understood as an expectation as in the case of our theological hope.)

 

[una_fides]

Paul was killing Christians. Thou shalt not kill is one of the 10 commandments.

Paul was blameless according to the law. He was not breaking the Jewish law by killing Christians because the Jews understood them to be blasphemers and the penalty for blasphemy according to the Jewish OT law was to be stoned to death. Objectively what he did was evil in that he persecuted the Church of Christ, but he also was open to God and upheld the law of Moses to the letter. Hence such persons would be the ones that would be open to God and hence God revealed himself to St. Paul in a special way, and Paul accepted and was baptized. According to the Council of Trent man most certainly can and does predispose himself for the reception of grace.

 

[una_fides]

Two questions:

If I understand correctly, original sin makes are souls dead to God. Therefore, how could God interact in any way whatsoever if the soul is dead to Him?

At the end of the world, there will only be Heaven or Hell. This does not leave room for “Limbo”. So, it appears the unbaptized will reside either in Heaven or Hell. If it’s Hell, by definition, there is a complete lack of God and therefore no bliss, joy, contentment or anything else good. If it’s Heaven, then the unbaptized person would have been allowed into Heaven anyway.

How can this be answered? (my understanding could be lacking so if my premise is wrong, please let me know why)

Aquinas explained the state of the souls of unbaptized infants in hell as on the highest level of hell without a pain of sense since they committed no actual sins and without a pain of loss because they never had the capacity to believe in God. Thus, this state lacking any pain or suffering would be at least to some degree blissful.

 

[una_fides]

That was my reason for bringing up Cornelius in Acts 10; to show that an unbaptized man had faith. He was neither a Jew nor a Christian when he was praying and giving to the poor.

This unbaptized man did not have the divine virtue of faith, which is infused in the soul at baptism, but he did have natural faith, which then led him to be baptized and be infused with the former and be saved.

 

[ron77nyc]

Paul was blameless according to the law. He was not breaking the Jewish law by killing Christians because the Jews understood them to be blasphemers and the penalty for blasphemy according to the Jewish OT law was to be stoned to death. Objectively what he did was evil in that he persecuted the Church of Christ, but he also was open to God and upheld the law of Moses to the letter.

Paul was blindly following the rules of his religion which he later refers to as the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law.

Romans 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

I think the purpose of Vatican II was to get to the spirit of the law. Up until that time the letter of the law had been over-emphasized.

Hence such persons would be the ones that would be open to God and hence God revealed himself to St. Paul in a special way, and Paul accepted and was baptized. According to the Council of Trent man most certainly can and does predispose himself for the reception of grace.

People can be disposed to grace and if they’re not, God will still reach them if He chooses to do so. If Paul was disposed to grace why did he have to be, figuratively speaking, knocked over the head?

Acts 9:7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Muslims, Jews, atheists etc. are subject to the Pope. So are Protestants. So are Catholics.

Where you are making the mistake (deliberate or not I cannot tell) is attempting to claim that ‘subjection’ means total and complete acceptance and submission. And that is not so. Plenty of Catholics might refuse’ to obey the teachings of the Church; that doesn’t mean that suddenly they aren’t subject to the Pope or to Christ. Really, would you claim that your best Protestant buddy who unfortunately has a tendency to extra-marital affairs (for example) is not ‘subject to Christ’ when he sins? Or that he removes himself from his Protestant church when he sins? No.

So don’t try the tactic of saying that if a person doesn’t say, “Yes I believe in Christ” or "yes, I obey the Pope’, then the person isn’t subject to Christ or to the Pope.

 

[ron77nyc]

Muslims, Jews, atheists etc. are subject to the Pope. So are Protestants. So are Catholics.

Where you are making the mistake (deliberate or not I cannot tell) is attempting to claim that ‘subjection’ means total and complete acceptance and submission. And that is not so. Plenty of Catholics might refuse’ to obey the teachings of the Church; that doesn’t mean that suddenly they aren’t subject to the Pope or to Christ. Really, would you claim that your best Protestant buddy who unfortunately has a tendency to extra-marital affairs (for example) is not ‘subject to Christ’ when he sins? Or that he removes himself from his Protestant church when he sins? No.

So don’t try the tactic of saying that if a person doesn’t say, “Yes I believe in Christ” or "yes, I obey the Pope’, then the person isn’t subject to Christ or to the Pope.

I don’t get what you’re saying. Atheists and Muslims hate the pope. When a Jew becomes a Christian he is shunned by his family if they observe the Old Testament.

 

[una_fides]

As for original sin, it does not make us dead to God since the Sacrament of Baptism did not come until Jesus. Else, all the people in the Old Testament are dead to God but obviously they aren’t. God spoke to Noah, to Abraham, to Issac, and all sorts of other people.

The souls are “dead to God” in the sense that they are empty and lack his presence who have not yet been regenerated or born again and filled with the life of God. That does not mean that God cannot act outside of his sacraments as he did prior to the point when they were instituted or that God does not draw souls to himself or reveal himself to them. Those saved in the OT were saved in hope of the coming Redeemer and through perfect charity.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t get what you’re saying. Atheists and Muslims hate the pope. When a Jew becomes a Christian he is shunned by his family if they observe the Old Testament.

Ron, you’re not that obtuse. Atheists don’t recognize God --but they are subject to God. Or do you think they aren’t?

You’re an intelligent person enough to ‘argue’ all sorts of teachings based on your ‘knowledge.’ Surely you have grasped the fact that one is subject to God whether or not one believes in God, and ‘accepts’ that one IS subject by the nature of simply existing.

If one is subject to God, one is subject to His ‘authority’ (and that is the Pope) as well. The Pope stands here on earth as God’s representative. Since we are subject to God we are subject to the Pope.

 

[una_fides]

Paul was blindly following the rules of his religion which he later refers to as the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law.

Romans 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

I think the purpose of Vatican II was to get to the spirit of the law. Up until that time the letter of the law had been over-emphasized.

You are talking about two different laws and two different covenants. It is a common mix up to think any time St. Paul refers to “law” he is referring to any law. By “law” and “works of the law,” St. Paul is referring to the Torah, the OT law that Christ fulfilled and left obsolete. If the law was sufficient, Christ would not have come to fulfill it. By fulfilling it, he rendered it useless. The law was a schoolmaster to teach and lead to Christ, its fulfillment and the end to which it was designed to point.

People can be disposed to grace and if they’re not, God will still reach them if He chooses to do so. If Paul was disposed to grace why did he have to be, figuratively speaking, knocked over the head?

Acts 9:7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

That’s how God chose to get his attention. Typically, God acts more subtly and less dramatically, but people still have Damascus Rd. experiences today. Had St. Paul not been disposed, he would not have replied “Who art thou Lord?” He was open to God’s grace and leading and as such he embraced his savior Jesus Christ whom he saw in his vision. Had he not been disposed, then he likely would have concluded this vision to be that of the devil or a deceit to lead him off the path. Surely many of the other pharisees who murdered our Lord out of the hardness of their hearts would have had such a reaction. St. Paul was led and consented to be baptized and became one of the pillars of the Church.

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron, you’re not that obtuse. Atheists don’t recognize God --but they are subject to God. Or do you think they aren’t?

You’re an intelligent person enough to ‘argue’ all sorts of teachings based on your ‘knowledge.’ Surely you have grasped the fact that one is subject to God whether or not one believes in God, and ‘accepts’ that one IS subject by the nature of simply existing.

If one is subject to God, one is subject to His ‘authority’ (and that is the Pope) as well. The Pope stands here on earth as God’s representative. Since we are subject to God we are subject to the Pope.

I’m really not trying to be difficult. I think we both agree that non-Catholics can be saved. All I’m saying is that the Church has not always taught that. Being subject to something or someone means: 1. Being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority of another or others: subject to the law.

Pope Boniface said it was absolutely necessary to be subject to the pope to be saved. If the whole world is automatically subject to the pope as you say, then there is no reason to do anything.

 

[una_fides]

I’m really not trying to be difficult. I think we both agree that non-Catholics can be saved. All I’m saying is that the Church has not always taught that. Being subject to something or someone means: 1. Being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority of another or others: subject to the law.

Pope Boniface said it was absolutely necessary to be subject to the pope to be saved. If the whole world is automatically subject to the pope as you say, then there is no reason to do anything.

Do you believe the Church can change her infallible teachings? If so, she looses her credibility. Why do you trust her on anything at all? She would obviously not be the “pillar and foundation of truth” that Scripture says she is (1 Tim 3:15). She would at best be just some other interpretation of Jesus and his teachings with no divine authority and no safeguard against teaching error.

 

[ron77nyc]

You are talking about two different laws and two different covenants.

Not really. When we make salvation dependent upon following man made rules then we are creating a new old covenant instead of staying with the new covenant.

 

[ron77nyc]

Do you believe the Church can change her infallible teachings? If so, she looses her credibility. Why do you trust her on anything at all? She would obviously not be the “pillar and foundation of truth” that Scripture says she is (1 Tim 3:15). She would at best be just some other interpretation of Jesus and his teachings with no divine authority and no safeguard against teaching error.

We don’t even know what the infallible teachings are. The Church changes teachings with lengthy explanations and tries to make all the pieces fit whether they fit or not. Ecumenical Councils are infallible. That can be argued and used to prove a point or not prove a point depending on where you want to take it. If every pope was infallible then they would all say the same thing but they don’t. The teachings change. If people were uneducated they would be easier to control but we’re not there anymore. I trust what the bible says. If the clergy says something that agrees with the bible then I accept it.