Can the Church change its teaching?

[yablabo]

– Continued From Above –

Second, I have never heard about the two levels – one of “religious assent” and one of “assent of faith.” This seems to me to be a false framework in order to construct a work-around to what you perceive as a clear contradiction. Wouldn’t it be better to step back, look at the items that seem contradictory, and consider an interpretation of both that might be faithful to the words, yet bringing them in harmony?

I understand your reaction to hearing the labels “religious assent” and “assent of faith” for the first time, but I did not author them. I learned them mainly from an appendix (written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (before he was Pope Benedict XVI, of course )) to an Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio of Pope John Paul II (Ad Tuendam Fidem) promulgated in 1998 (Cardinal Ratzinger writes of religious submission of intellect and will, not religious assent explicitly, but it is the same concept that the Second Vatican Council calls religious assent). But, also, the First Vatican Council (On Faith (#6-8)) teaches of the assent of faith and when specifically it is demanded; and the Second Vatican Council (in Lumen Gentium (#25)) teaches of “religious assent” and when it is demanded.

I, also, must confess that I was in error regarding the binding quality of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I examined the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum which commands the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Authority. I found that in the section The Doctrinal Value of the Text the Pope is not declaring the text to be any more than a reference book for the writing of new local catechisms. He also writes that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not “intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities.” So, while it is to be used as “an authentic reference text” and “a sure norm for teaching the faith,” it is that and nothing more. The most, then, that it could bind one, since it is not a universal teaching, is at the level of pious assent due to the credibility of the office from whence it came (St. Louis de Montfort teaches about pious assent in his book The Secrets of the Rosary). I am sorry that I published my error on this forum.

Yes, there are different levels of Church teaching, and not every document put out by the Church has the no-error guarantee. But at the level of a Council’s teaching on baptism I don’t think we can find the statement of the Council of Florence “to be a false teaching.”

I agree with you whole-heartedly here. There is no way one can find the statement of the Council of Florence to be a false teaching. I was simply stating certainly that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the one which contains the false teaching, due to the fact that it contradicts infallible teachings of the Church, please re-read my first post.

Don’t take my word on what any of these documents which I have referenced or quoted do say. They’re all fairly easy to find, check them out for yourself.

– Nicole

 

[surritter]

I considered the possiblity that some of the people on this thread do not know what they are talking about. Cardinal Kasper taught dogmatic theology at the Westphalian University of Münster (1964-1970), rising to become dean of the theological faculty in 1969, and then the same in Tübingen in 1970. In 1983, he taught as a visiting professor at The Catholic University of America.On 16 March 1999, Cardinal Kasper was appointed President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. He is also a member of the International Theological Commission, an advisory body to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. He was a cardinal elector in the 2005 papal conclave. He has repeatedly led official delegations of the Vatican on the annual visit to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople, on the occasion of the Patronal Feast of Saint Andrew. In August 2007, he was the head of the Roman Catholic delegation that participated at the funeral ceremony of the Patriarch of the Romanian Christian Orthodox Church, Teoctist.
It is obvious from the credentials and experience of Cardinal Kasper, that he acts with the full and complete blessing of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
Has the Pope ever said that Cardinal Kapser was a heretic, or is this fallacious claim just an opinion of an anonymous blogger with no official credentials in the Roman Catholic Church?

No, the Pope has not said that Cardinal Kasper is a heretic. But Kasper is not making infallible Church teaching when he speaks. So this whole notion of bringing him up is irrelevant to this thread.

 

[surritter]

– Continued From Above –

God can neither deceive nor be deceived; we know this teaching is infallible and part of the definition of the supernatural virtue of faith in the First Vatican Council (On Faith (#2)). That means that if God tells us that “unless we are born again of water and the Spirit,” which the Church has understood to be the sacrament of Baptism, “we cannot…enter the kingdom of heaven,” then it is an absolute statement (from the time of the promulgation of the Gospels). It means that we can all know with perfect certitude that anyone who dies unbaptized does not ever go to heaven. It means that there is no other way of salvation than first entering through the “gate of the spiritual life,” which is the sacrament of Baptism.

Also, your statements on Original Sin seem to be contrary. You seem to be saying at one point that babies do not have Original Sin only to be saying next that they do. Correct me if I am wrong.

Sure, I’ll clarify my statement for you. Of course unbaptized babies are burdened with original sin. I didn’t mean that babies have original sin and then they arbitrarily don’t – that ridding of original sin is only true if they receive the grace from God to wipe away original sin. Now, how do they receive that grace? Of course, it’s through the sacrament of baptism.

My point is that if a baby dies without having received the sacrament, we CANNOT definitively state that the baby’s soul is in hell. I read your statements to be making that necessary inference.

Instead, I was simply repeating the Church’s teaching that we don’t exactly know; rather, we commend their souls to God, Who is perfectly capable of wiping away their original sin in an unseen manner. That doesn’t mean that such a thing happens. It just means that we have to be careful that we don’t restate a teaching in a way that makes the opposite premise sound like the only conclusion.

 

[whatischarity]

Actually if an individual is invincibly ignorant he is only free of guilt concerning the specific matter of which he has such ignorance. He may not be guilty for not externally becoming a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but he inevitably will be guilty of other sins against the natural law written on the hearts of every man so that every one is without excuse, as St. Paul so rightly explains in Romans 1.

I actually find the pope’s last line as more of a warning against the liberals who proceed into further inquiry as to trying to turn this dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus into a meaningless formula. The Church always had always warned against minimizing this dogma but had never warned about stating too explicitly that those not living inside the ark cannot be saved and never has the Church explicitly said that those who follow false religions can be saved in their false religions.

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine, August 12, 1950:
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[11] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith. 28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error. newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm

I think, thanks to your reference material, that there are 2 poles that need to be avoided. One is religious indifferentism and the other is the belief that any individual not formally a member of the Church is unable to be saved. I would think that you and I can agree that both of these extremes are to be strenuously avoided.

Taking up your use of the term “ark”. It appears to me that the reference material does indeed demonstrate that some can be both outside the ark bodily yet inside the ark spiritually. Now I agree that it is much better to be both body and soul inside the ark, but nevertheless it would be false to state that only physical presence matters. It seems to me that this point is often left out in some discussions of salvation and the church. (Your posting of the Baltimore Catechism was most helpful.)

This excerpt from the Catechism of St Pope Pius X illustrates this point:

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

 

[sidbrown]

And do you have the Church’s actual teaching regarding members of the Eastern Churches receiving Communion in a CC? If you could post that, it would be helpful as well. Thanks.

Vatican II document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 27:
“Given the above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of
Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of the sick may be
conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated
from the Catholic Church, if they make the request of their own
accord and are properly disposed.”

 

[sidbrown]

Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 16:
“But the plan of salvation also embraces those who
acknowledge the Creator, and among these the MOSLEMS are
first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham AND ALONG
WITH US THEY WORSHIP THE ONE MERCIFUL GOD
WHO WILL JUDGE HUMANITY ON THE LAST DAY.”
Here we see that the plan of salvation embraces those who acknowledge the Creator.

 

[sidbrown]

We see another serious change in the teaching as to whether or not liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right:
Pope Pius IX - NO
Vatican II - Yes.
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864: “From which totally false
idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in
its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor,
Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND
WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY
PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY;
and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained
by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, WHEREBY THEY MAY BE ABLE
OPENLY AND PUBLICLY TO MANIFEST AND DECLARE ANY OF THEIR IDEAS
WHATEVER, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH, BY THE PRESS, OR IN ANY OTHER
WAY.’ But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are
preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE
REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL
OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND
WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE
SONS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND
CONDEMNED.”
Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2:
“This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.
Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by
individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act
against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his
conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits… This right of the human
person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society as
to become a civil right.”

 

[sidbrown]

No, the Pope has not said that Cardinal Kasper is a heretic. But Kasper is not making infallible Church teaching when he speaks. So this whole notion of bringing him up is irrelevant to this thread.

I don’t see why it is irrelevant, since Cardinal Lasper and Pope Benedict are saying exactly the same thing:
Benedict XVI, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”
Zenit News story,

 

[sidbrown]

Great questions. The Church has actually given an answer. They could possibly be saved (in the Church though not a visible member); however, for any validly baptized protestant after he has reached the age of reason, it would be extremely difficult to attain eternal salvation.

**Baltimore Catechism

• 1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?**

  A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.   Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never – even in the past – had the slightest doubt of that fact – what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister – not being a true priest – has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition – that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic – with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts – might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church. cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bcreed09.htm

That’s funny because Pope Benedict XVI on August 17, 2005 said that the Protestant Roger Schutz, who left the Catholic Church, “is in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; he has arrived at eternal joy…”

 

[una_fides]

I think, thanks to your reference material, that there are 2 poles that need to be avoided. One is religious indifferentism and the other is the belief that any individual not formally a member of the Church is unable to be saved. I would think that you and I can agree that both of these extremes are to be strenuously avoided.

Taking up your use of the term “ark”. It appears to me that the reference material does indeed demonstrate that some can be both outside the ark bodily yet inside the ark spiritually. Now I agree that it is much better to be both body and soul inside the ark, but nevertheless it would be false to state that only physical presence matters. It seems to me that this point is often left out in some discussions of salvation and the church. (Your posting of the Baltimore Catechism was most helpful.)

This excerpt from the Catechism of St Pope Pius X illustrates this point:

Yes, it could be possible for someone to be bodily outside the physical Church building (i.e. not regularly receiving the sacraments, etc) but spiritually inside and be saved. A person is both body and soul, however, so I think we need to be careful when we distinguish or separate the two to some extent because the man has to have his body to be a person. His whole person would be in the Church (ark) because of his internal disposition, even if one could not observe such visibly.

An essential piece of information that seems to be lost in current catechism teachings (at least explicitly) is the extreme difficulty for such souls to attain eternal salvation without frequent reception of the sacraments. I know in my case I would most certainly be lost without them. The temptations of the flesh are too great for someone to be saved without regularly receiving confession and the Eucharist. Yes, it could be possible for someone invincibly ignorant of the Church to be so submissive and open to God according to natural grace, but without reception of supernatural grace and knowledge of the requirements of perfect contrition and charity, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to be saved who is not a member of the visible Church. Yes God is merciful and he can and does draw people to himself and to the truth, but we must keep in mind that the way he saves people and the truth to which he brings them is within his one holy Catholic Church, through her sacraments, through her teachings, through her truth, and thus through Himself in that sanctifying grace.

On a side note regarding the Catechism of Pius X, I recall reading somewhere that this catechism version was edited throughout the years. I was unable to locate an original to compare, but either way, it reflects the teaching of the Church (at least now) according to her ordinary Magisterium.

 

[una_fides]

Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 16:
“But the plan of salvation also embraces those who
acknowledge the Creator, and among these the MOSLEMS are
first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham AND ALONG
WITH US THEY WORSHIP THE ONE MERCIFUL GOD
WHO WILL JUDGE HUMANITY ON THE LAST DAY.”
Here we see that the plan of salvation embraces those who acknowledge the Creator.

It’s funny because I’m saying all the same things on another thread right now entitled “Can Muslims be saved?”

Yes they "play a part in God’s plan of salvation, but so does satan and the fallen angels. Does that mean they will be saved? The damned also play a part in God’s plan of salvation, but obviously they will not be saved since their fate is set. The point is that this wording is extremely vague, and one should not build his theology on vague statements, and the vague statements such as this must be left as virtually meaningless since one cannot conclude either way that it means that they can or will be saved or not. It does not make any conclusion either way; it merely follows V2’s merciful dialogue mentality to state things in the most positive and vague way possible to sound pleasing to those who disagree with Catholic teachings. While when understood according to the Church’s tradition and constant teachings, this statement can be rectified, it certainly proves difficult in muddying the Church’s dogmatic teachings with vague, overly-positive, non-dogmatic dialogue such as this.

 

[una_fides]

We see another serious change in the teaching as to whether or not liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right:
Pope Pius IX - NO
Vatican II - Yes.
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864: “From which totally false
idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in
its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor,
Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND
WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY
PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY;
and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained
by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, WHEREBY THEY MAY BE ABLE
OPENLY AND PUBLICLY TO MANIFEST AND DECLARE ANY OF THEIR IDEAS
WHATEVER, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH, BY THE PRESS, OR IN ANY OTHER
WAY.’ But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are
preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE
REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL
OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND
WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE
SONS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND
CONDEMNED.”
Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2:
“This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.
Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by
individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act
against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his
conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits… This right of the human
person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society as
to become a civil right.”

What freedom does Vatican II state man has? Freedom from being forced to accept a religion against his will. Does that mean that man has a divine right to worship God contrary to how he has revealed he only wishes to be worshiped (in spirit and in truth)? Of course not and that’s not what Vatican II was saying, although many try to make it say that in contradiction.

The Church has in her past permitted the practice of false religions and such can be justified because of a greater good or in order to avoid a greater evil. In this case, the Church has clarified through her years of experience in observing the result of forbidding false religions to worship that a greater evil will inevitably occur in wars, murders, hatred, etc that can take place as well as forcing people to embrace a religion that they should be free to embrace. The key to understanding and trying to reconcile the two is that man does not have a divine right to exercise a false religion, which would thereby violate the 1st commandment any more than he has a divine right to murder someone, but because of the greater evils that occur as a result of outlawing false religions, the Church has said that man should be free to choose his religion on a civil level, though on a divine level, God has instructed and revealed that he desires all men to worship him in his holy Catholic Church.

 

[una_fides]

I don’t see why it is irrelevant, since Cardinal Lasper and Pope Benedict are saying exactly the same thing:
Benedict XVI, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”
Zenit News story,

Can you please provide the link to the full text of that story?? It would be greatly appreciated.

 

[una_fides]

That’s funny because Pope Benedict XVI on August 17, 2005 said that the Protestant Roger Schutz, who left the Catholic Church, “is in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; he has arrived at eternal joy…”

Again can you please cite sources especially ones we can view through online documents? Notice all my quotes are linked to online full versions of the documents. Without citing your sources so that others can easily read them in their entirety your alleged quote will be written off as nothing more than hearsay or a quote taken out of context. I’m not saying that is definitively the case, but without easy access to the full text, we cannot know or believe your source to be correct. Even then we should also try to find the original language to make sure it was translated properly. I know in recent years there have been some very poor translations in order to support a liberal agenda. The wording at the Novus Ordo Mass is a great example. The upcoming changes to the wording at this mass which will soon be implemented will make this apparent.

 

[surritter]

I don’t see why it is irrelevant, since Cardinal Lasper and Pope Benedict are saying exactly the same thing:
Benedict XVI, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”
Zenit News story,

'Tis indeed irrelevant, simply because we are supposed to be discussing official Church teaching, and Cardinal Kasper’s comments are not official teaching, nor is Pope Benedict’s statement that you quote above!

This is the point I’ve been trying to make. If the pope came out tomorrow in a homily and said that Mary was only the mother of the human part of Jesus, you would believe that Church teaching had instantly changed away from theotokos. I would say that a pope’s homily is not infallible teaching and he just made a serious mistake. It is not an “ex cathedra” statement.

If you do some research on the Church’s true idea of infallibility and the proper channels of invoking infallible, definitive teaching, I think you’ll come to agree with my assessment.

 

[ron77nyc]

Here’s what’s confusing. Father Feeney was stating the official Church dogma and he was told to stop. Cardinal Kasper and EWTN are teaching the opposite of official dogma and no one is telling them to stop.

 

[surritter]

Here’s what’s confusing. Father Feeney was stating the official Church dogma and he was told to stop. Cardinal Kasper and EWTN are teaching the opposite of official dogma and no one is telling them to stop.

Fr. Feeney was espousing HIS INTERPRETATION of Church teaching.

Why are you guys trying to look for a snake under every rock??

 

[ron77nyc]

If the Church has always taught there is a possibility of salvation for those outside the Church and Vatican II says what the Church has always said, then why didn’t everyone know about it before?

 

[Malleus_01]

If the Church has always taught there is a possibility of salvation for those outside the Church and Vatican II says what the Church has always said, then why didn’t everyone know about it before?

Mal: Defined DOGMA and undefined theology is not the same thing. There is no Salvation outside the Church - for even those souls saved by Natural Law the Criteria being explained by St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa are saved through the CHURCH. As for what “everyone” knows or doesnt know - ONLY the CATHOLIC Church has the Lawful Authority from OUR LORD to TEACH in his name and to Bind or Loose. Whether people LEARN or not is another matter.

Pax

 

[ron77nyc]

ONLY the CATHOLIC Church has the Lawful Authority from OUR LORD to TEACH in his name and to Bind or Loose. Whether people LEARN or not is another matter.

Pax

Correct me if I’m wrong but are you saying the people are at fault for not picking this up when the Church was teaching it?