Can the Church change its teaching?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PeteZaHut
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sidbrown said:
In the current issue of the Tidings newspaper, the Catholic newspaper of LA, there is an article by Father Richard Benson on Slavery in the USA. (p. 12, Feb. 12, 2010). Father writes that there were Catholic clergy who owned slaves and who sold them, rather than freeing them. And he states the following: “American bishops never forbade slave-owners to take Communion, even during the Civil War.”
This then would appear to be a rather serious change in Catholic teaching on slavery.
Click to expand...
Nice try Sid.
American bishops who allow evil are not the Church making an official pronouncement or teaching. It is simply bad leadership and/or sinful individuals displaying their human faults.

What you are looking for is an ex cathedra statement or a document from an ecumenical council that definitively states that owning slaves and treating them in the way that was done in our country is perfectly moral. And you will be searching in vain.
 
Ed, there is NO GOOD REASON for any informed practicing Catholic to fear hell. NONE! Use the tools God gives us and stop worrying. [from PJM]

I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure this is not what the Church teaches. It teaches to use the tools and hopefully you will make it to Heaven. But you never know. In addition, I think it might be easier than you think to be in mortal sin and not know it, at least clearly. What I mean to say is that it is human nature to rationalize why something may or may not be a mortal sin. If you rationalize wrong, you are still guilty of the sin. No? I mean, you could die and God could say you didn’t give enough money to the Church or you didn’t pray enough and so off to hell with you. Now, you might have rationalized that you gave enough, but…

IMPOSSIBLE ED!

CCC 1859 *** "Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent.*** It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

CCC 1857 "For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”
I believe God loves me. But I have this horrible feeling the Church is out to get me. One mistep and Boom! Off to hell with you! I find myself wondering if the Church today if really what Jesus wanted. Often it seems like the Church is interested in keeping it’s own power. One way to do this is to keep the parishiners afraid of hell for not doing exactly what they say and completed subjected to that power. I find myself not loving the Church and my very faith in God questioned while I go through the motions at Church, more as a safeguard than anything else, in case my feelings are betraying me. Going to Mass, for me, is not rewarding at all. I’m there because if I don’t go, I’ll for sure go to hell. Not because I want too.
Click to expand...
Ed, what is your understanding of Catholic Holy Communion?*** PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION.

Your imagination is the issue and heres is why it is.

Ed, do you know that Satan cannot [simply lacks the power to influence our “freewill?”] The way Satan works is he has easy access through our emotions. That Ed, is the cause of your uncertanities and doubts.

There simply is NO, ZIP, ZERRO grounds for your understanding. While God Himself is EXTREMELY personal, the Church is extremely impersonal in Her application of Grace, Mercy and love; being open and available to all of us sinners.

You would be well advised to discuss your concerns with a priest. How long has it been sence your last Confession?

I’d rather be having a private converstaion with you Ed. PM me if you’d like that too?

PJM

As to your question of th “Church today” being what Christ wanted.

Eph. 2:19 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

**John 14: 16 ** And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you."

Ed, here we find Jesus Praying for the Church you ar asking about: “John 17: 14 I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.”

Ed, its NOT the Catholic Church. It’s the fact that a GREAT many within the church no longer believe and follow Her Pope, and Her Teachings that simply cannot be in error on matters of faith or morals.

Reread these bible verses and Catecheism istructions. They cannot be, its impossible that they are in error.

Ed pray!

You are in my prayers,
Pat
PJM
 
ron77nyc said:
The Church has always put great emphasis on the sacraments as if that was all you needed to live a successful Christian life. Pope Leo XIII knew it wasn’t enough back in1893. He gave specific instructions on how biblical education is to be conducted in Catholic schools and it fell by the wayside. Who is responsible for that?

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html
PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

`The arms of our warfare are not carnal but mighty unto God.’ "(9) Let all, therefore, especially the novices of the ecclesiastical army, understand how deeply the sacred Books should be esteemed, and with what eagerness and reverence they should approach this great arsenal of heavenly arms.

But the teaching should result in a definite and ascertained method of interpretation-and therefore the Professor should equally avoid the mistake of giving a mere taste of every Book, and of dwelling at too great length on a part of one Book. If most schools cannot do what is done in the large institutions-that is, take the students through the whole of one or two Books continuously and with a certain development-yet at least those parts which are selected should be treated with suitable fulness; in such a way that the students may learn from the sample that is thus put before them to love and use the remainder of the sacred Book during the whole of their lives.
Click to expand...
I appreciate what you are saying here and I agree with it in concept. At the same time I must protest that you are looking at this from a perspective that seems to be your own. The quote you have teaches us to revere the Sacred Texts. Which we all should. There are different ways to do this, and the Mass is where we have done it over 2000 years. While many in this modern time and living in our low-attention and highly interactive age may feel that Mass is not enough, the Mass can work for all of us if we allow the Lord to give us a new heart, so that it would not longer be harden like stone.

On the worldwide perspective, the Church is very large and very diverse. Most of the world still have illiteracy issues. In fact, the person replying to you have difficulties with words. [Even some in my family cannot read what I write before heavy editing.] I am educated but I hardly read. Not that I do not want to, I love books, but I have trouble and usually have others read to me or listen to audio programs.

I can proudly say that I have read, albeit sporadically, one bible from front to back–a children’s bible I received when my mother came to America. It would have about 3-4 versus for every picture in the book and 6 pictures per page. So I cannot say I have read an adult version of the bible in completion. However, I have learned large texts of the bible through readings and gospels at Mass. Ever since I was young, I quoted from the scriptures without knowing what the scriptures were. I have kept my faith because the graces of Christ our Lord through the efficacious of the Sacraments. No matter who you are, whether you are strong in your faith or is very confused, the Sacraments will always help.

One is definitely more open to cherishing God’s graces if one is knowledgeable and have the heart of a child. However, for all people, God’s graces are enough. And we receive those graces directly through the Sacraments whether we are five or fifty in age, whether we are a billionaire or a pauper, whether we have a theology degree or can only sign our names. This is truth. Never let our longing for knowledge overshadow our longing for truth.

I really understand and appreciate what you are saying. But please do not say it as if it is one or the other, or that the Church “dropped the ball” on remembering the bible. We both know that people inside the Church can make mistakes, else I am just wasting my time in confession. However, the Church, herself is both a collection of all her children as well as a the goodness and greatness that Christ gives us as we are His body.

The Church is very right to emphasize over and over and over the Sacraments. The Church is very right to have as the core the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the entirety of the worship from the moment the priest emerges from the congregation and enters the sanctuary, in persona Christi and as our head so that where he goes we go. And he is going to where Heaven meets Earth, where the Divine meats Humanity. This is where we are called to leave our selves and open the gates, escorting the Lord under our roof. This is the ultimate lesson and it is not a simple one. Because the Mass is meant for us to reflect over in every part of our lives.
The Liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows." Vatican II - Constitution On The Sacred Liturgy - pp. 10
Click to expand...
 
ron77nyc said:
Your statements prove to me that you judge the entire history of the Catholic Church by what you have seen in your lifetime in your part of the world. This previous post supports what I’m saying about differences in teaching at various times in various regions.
Click to expand...
Maybe because it wasn’t dogmatic or doctrinal teaching. This needs to be consistent. Don’t use what I said out of context. I asked if Limbo was taught in other cultures because it was not taught in my own. When I use the word taught, I am using it in general as in someone teaching another. You are using the world Church’s teachings to refer to something that cannot be changed but is. However, you are confusing doctrine with theological interpretation.
 
Ed_Sorenson said:
The Church forces us to do all kinds of things with the threat of hell if we do not do exactly as we are told. It would be nice sometime to feel as I could go to Mass becasue I wanted too, not because I had too. You have to respect the protestants who go to church even though they don’t believe they have too. They are doing it because they want too.
Click to expand...
This is probably due to history. Since the Church is very vast but in some places there are not enough priest to go around, things got confusing. Let me use a simplified story as an example. Say every spring, priest so and so from the monastery is asked by the local bishop to come help in an area (call it town a) that is secluded and cannot afford to keep up a priest. So he comes in the spring only while the rest of the year he has other duties. Maybe in another area (called town b), it is a priest that can only come in the fall. While in the city, priest are available year round.

Now with all this confusion, say a person who was born and raised in town a decides to move to town b or to the city, and he gets confused as to why people go to Mass at other times. Maybe he wonders if this is really Catholic because they are going at non-normal mass times. Some would say he was not taught properly; well that is true. But is the visiting priest supposed to know what he hasn’t been taught? How about his parents? What if his parents were never taught either and grew up in town a as well. So what is this person to do? Is he going to go to Mass every day or stay away because he is uncomfortable about this weird situation? The answer to this is that the Church, who is a good mother to a very very diverse group, teaches that all Catholics are required to go to Mass every week except for serious reasons. This way, all teachers of the faith know what needs to be taught and not have to worry about unusual circumstances that may or may not exists.

I hope that gives you an understanding of why this was so bluntly stated. By the way, we are required to attend every Sunday by our mother the Church similarly to how we require our children to eat their vegetables whether they understand the health benefits or not. And at the same time, Protestants in general go to Church, but it is probably not as routine as you might imagine over all.
ron77nyc said:
It deals with the changing teachings and inconsistencies of the Church throughout history. The early fathers encouraged scripture for sermons and teaching. Pope Leo XIII made an attempt to go back to the scriptures for spiritual nourishment and now Pope Benedict is trying to revive the importance of scripture reading. It’s a change in church teaching.
Click to expand...
According to what you just said, it is a continuous and consistent teaching.
  1. Early Church Fathers encouraged scripture for sermons and teaching.
  2. Pope Leo XIII did the same.
  3. Pope Benedict XVI did the same.
    The only non-sequitar here is after you stated those three facts, you wrote: “It’s a change in church teaching.”
This is how it is, how it’s always been, and how it’s supposed to be. You say you are a Catholic, does your parish not have homilies? Nor readings? Nor Gospels? Maybe not even Mass. You are ignoring that 2000 year existence of scripture being integral to Catholic existence.
As a personal aside to you ron, I hope you are getting together with your priest and doing bible study as you want. I encourage people to follow God in the different ways God has created them. We are called to love the Lord with all of our mind, heart, and body. This means we love him in intellectually, spiritually, and in reality. This also means we love him in our thoughts, in our trust, and in our actions.

Just know that some enter the body through learning, others through recognizing, and others through practicing. After we enter, we are to explore the other paths as well to enrich us, that would include you in non-bible study only formats. At the Liturgy, the summit of where we head to as Catholics and source from which we draw our strength to live as Catholics in the world, we are called to love the Lord with all of our mind, hearts, and body completely and simultaneously.

However, it does not mean you cannot find other like minded intellectuals to discuss the bible with particularly relying on the CCC and an orthodox priest to be your guild along with prayer and/or blessing before and after each meeting. [Not sure about your parish, but my Vietnamese in my youth had ~44 groups that focus on either devotions, acts of charity, bible study, study of writings form saints, or a combination of those.] I was in the Legion of Mary when I was young. I could never volunteer to read during the study sessions (I was quite ashamed of that until because I did not know why then) but I wanted to learn. Always, there are doors open for you. The Church never close those doors on us, but that Church is careful to not let her children fall to the trappings of the world. Whatever you do, whether bible study or devotional prayers, do it with the heart of the Church.
 
surritter said:
Nice try Sid.
American bishops who allow evil are not the Church making an official pronouncement or teaching. It is simply bad leadership and/or sinful individuals displaying their human faults.

What you are looking for is an ex cathedra statement or a document from an ecumenical council that definitively states that owning slaves and treating them in the way that was done in our country is perfectly moral. And you will be searching in vain.
Click to expand...
Once again, I am going by the article in the Catholic newspaper written by the Catholic Father Richard Benson. The holding of slaves by Catholic clergy, including bishops, priests, and orders of women religious, was fairly widspread. Was there ever any direction from the Vatican that this was not a moral thing to do? The bishops and clergy justified their actions on the basis of Scriptural references to slavery and that Slaves should be subject to their masters.
If this was heretical, why then did the Vatican do nothing to stop it? In fact, was it not true that Popes had owned slaves in the past ?
So it looks like from the article of Catholic Father Richard Benson, that the teaching on slavery has changed.
 
sidbrown said:
Once again, I am going by the article in the Catholic newspaper written by the Catholic Father Richard Benson. The holding of slaves by Catholic clergy, including bishops, priests, and orders of women religious, was fairly widspread. Was there ever any direction from the Vatican that this was not a moral thing to do? The bishops and clergy justified their actions on the basis of Scriptural references to slavery and that Slaves should be subject to their masters.
If this was heretical, why then did the Vatican do nothing to stop it? In fact, was it not true that Popes had owned slaves in the past?
So it looks like from the article of Catholic Father Richard Benson, that the teaching on slavery has changed.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter if those priests and bishops justified their actions with Scriptural reference. This is still not part of the infallible deposit of faith! For it to be officially taught by the Church, it must be something that is taught as such through official proclamations and held by the pope and the bishops in union with him.

I have heard bishops teach error from the pulpit and do you think that the official Church positions were suddenly changed because of that? No – we must listen to the Magisterium, not individuals.

Yes, some popes have had slaves (and mistresses and lots of stuff) but that still is not part of the infallible realm. The problem of slavery is also muddied because there were some types of slavery that were acceptable (referenced by St. Paul) but they are not even close to what we think of in terms of America’s bout with slavery. So the same term is used for things that don’t necessarily mean the same thing.
 
StillWondering said:
Maybe because it wasn’t dogmatic or doctrinal teaching. This needs to be consistent. Don’t use what I said out of context.
Click to expand...
I apologize for using your quote out of context. When I first read it, I thought it was very peculiar that something we were taught as fact was later revealed to be non-dogmatic and not learned by all Catholics.
 
surritter said:
It doesn’t matter if those priests and bishops justified their actions with Scriptural reference. This is still not part of the infallible deposit of faith! For it to be officially taught by the Church, it must be something that is taught as such through official proclamations and held by the pope and the bishops in union with him.

I have heard bishops teach error from the pulpit and do you think that the official Church positions were suddenly changed because of that? No – we must listen to the Magisterium, not individuals.

Yes, some popes have had slaves (and mistresses and lots of stuff) but that still is not part of the infallible realm. The problem of slavery is also muddied because there were some types of slavery that were acceptable (referenced by St. Paul) but they are not even close to what we think of in terms of America’s bout with slavery. So the same term is used for things that don’t necessarily mean the same thing.
Click to expand...
Why did the Vatican allow it?
 
ron77nyc said:
I apologize for using your quote out of context. When I first read it, I thought it was very peculiar that something we were taught as fact was later revealed to be non-dogmatic and not learned by all Catholics.
Click to expand...
I apologize as well in case I sounded snappy due to how abrupt that sentence was written.

Ron, if you ever felt side swiped by what we, as Catholics dispersed throughout the world, are taught, know that there is a true Church who has true teachings. God gives us this tangible entity to be our mother in faith so that while we have hope in the promises of Heaven, we can also have faith that some of it is here with us now.
 
The Vatican as an enforcement agency is fallible. The Magisterium is infallible.
 
sidbrown said:
Why did the Vatican allow it?
Click to expand...
I don’t think a good Catholic on a Catholic forum will give you an honest answer to that question so I’ll give you my answer and then watch all the hostile responses come in. Although I believe the Catholic Church is the Church that all others came from except the Orthodox Catholics who are here just as long and maybe even longer, and the world is a much better place because of the Catholic Church, I believe there are some serious flaws in the system. This is a church that cares very much about its image and does not deal with problems until they become scandals. If slavery were acceptable at the time you mentioned and not causing scandal then it would not be a problem for the Vatican. If bishops were holding slaves today and CBS News did a story on it, that would be a scandal.
 
ron77nyc said:
I don’t think a good Catholic on a Catholic forum will give you an honest answer to that question so I’ll give you my answer and then watch all the hostile responses come in. Although I believe the Catholic Church is the Church that all others came from except the Orthodox Catholics who are here just as long and maybe even longer, and the world is a much better place because of the Catholic Church, I believe there are some serious flaws in the system. This is a church that cares very much about its image and does not deal with problems until they become scandals. If slavery were acceptable at the time you mentioned and not causing scandal then it would not be a problem for the Vatican. If bishops were holding slaves today and CBS News did a story on it, that would be a scandal.
Click to expand...
Is it true that both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church have changed their teaching on slavery?
 
There also appears to be another change in Catholic teaching on the dragon. In the past, we have seen icons of St. Michael the Archangel in battle with the dragon who I thought represented Satan or a devil of some kind. However, now with the Chinese New Year, we have dragons parading throughout the Church and people are told that if you pat the dragon as it passes through the Church, it will bring you good luck. I think that this angle on the dragon in Church bringing you good luck is a new teaching which has appeared only recently.
 
sidbrown said:
Is it true that both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church have changed their teaching on slavery?
Click to expand...
I don’t know the Orthodox position on slavery. All I know about slavery is God hates it. Jesus died to make us free.
 
ron77nyc said:
I don’t know the Orthodox position on slavery. All I know about slavery is God hates it. Jesus died to make us free.
Click to expand...
But St. Paul did say that slaves should be subject to their masters and Catholic clergy owned and sold slaves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top