Can the Church change its teaching?

[una_fides]

Do you think clergy and laity of previous generations were left with the idea that maybe somehow their Jewish or Protestant acquaintances would see them in heaven after hearing the following quotes? The words “imperfectly joined” were not in their vocabulary.

• “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which **no one at all **is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that **it is absolutely necessary **for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

What is taught today is a complete reversal of what was taught before. These councils and bulls were deliberately excluding non-Catholics. They were not concerned about being offensive. You can’t compare it to the Immaculate Conception.

Ron, you raise an interesting question, but I think you are doing it with the wrong motives. Instead of trying to figure out how the Church could say what seems to be one thing one way at one time and seemingly something different later, you seem to be just trying to prove the Church to be contradicting herself. If you are seeking the truth and humbly asking God for answers, then God will guide you to be able to figure it out, but if your agenda is to prove the Church in error, then I think you should reexamine your motives.

I agree that those statements were directed to exclude non-Catholics, and they most certainly do exclude them. The vast majority of those outside the Church–IMHO–will never make it inside the ark and will be lost in the flood. For those who are invincibly ignorant, meaning it is not in any way their fault that they do not know the truth about the faith, they are not guilty for not entering the Church and have the possibility of salvation but need perfect charity and perfect contrition and have to die in such a state. I think the Church, when she did not overemphasize God’s mercy like she seems to do now, then realized that the chances were so bleak for them that it would be better to just view them all as guilty and liable for not entering the Church, as for all practical reasons, those without access to the sacraments are in such a lost condition that they will almost certainly be overwhelmed by their sins and die in such a state. Furthermore, the people who would hear such decrees almost certainly would not be invincibly ignorant nor would it benefit them to consider the possibility that there could be someone open enough to God’s grace outside the Church that he could have an implicit desire to enter through perfect charity.

I think now for ecumenical reasons, the Church is explaining this possibility in the most positive and “merciful” language possible in an attempt to not offend anyone by telling them that they are pretty-much on the road to hell. Tell someone they are on the road to hell and see how they react. 99.9% of the time they will write you off and get angry. Instead of wars, the Church now is trying to make peace with all these false religions that are leading souls to hell. I personally do not agree with the approach, but I humbly submit to the authority of the Church and pray that she reverts to the path of being separate from the world and heretics as Scripture clearly teaches she ought to be.

 

[una_fides]

“This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.”

What kind of right? Civil or divine? I interpret according to the former as the latter would seem to constitute a change in doctrine rather than a change in law.

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron, you raise an interesting question, but I think you are doing it with the wrong motives. Instead of trying to figure out how the Church could say what seems to be one thing one way at one time and seemingly something different later, you seem to be just trying to prove the Church to be contradicting herself. If you are seeking the truth and humbly asking God for answers, then God will guide you to be able to figure it out, but if your agenda is to prove the Church in error, then I think you should reexamine your motives.

I’m being perfectly honest. Here is my position. I believe the early church fathers were the true Catholic Church. They always had the right interpretation of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” which is the non-literal interpretation and they had everything else right too. The middle ages got it wrong. They were Feeneyites before anyone knew what that was. The Church today is going to the extreme opposite saying that Jews, Muslims and atheists can live a good life and that’s good enough. My main point is this: the Church has not always preached the same message so don’t say you did when you really didn’t. The gospel does not change. If some popes in the middle ages were preaching Feeneyism they were in error and they were not infallible. Papal bulls and ecumenical councils are infallible documents. They were teaching faith and morals from the chair of Peter. Pope Benedict today is teaching faith erroneously. He’s in the infallible arena teaching error. Never mind my motives. What’s his motive? You can’t give people false hope telling them they’ll be OK without the gospel. As leader of all Christians he’s supposed to fearlessly proclaim the gospel and leave the rest to God.

 

[ron77nyc]

I was taught than anyone that lived a good life will see God ,by a priest in the 1960’s when I converted pre Vatican II

If that’s true then Jesus allowed himself to be crucified for no reason. No one is capable of living an entire good life. All religions teach living a good life. The difference between Christianity and all the others is Jesus died for sinners. He died for those who were not able to live a good life.

 

[una_fides]

I’m being perfectly honest. Here is my position. I believe the early church fathers were the true Catholic Church. They always had the right interpretation of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” which is the non-literal interpretation and they had everything else right too. The middle ages got it wrong. They were Feeneyites before anyone knew what that was. The Church today is going to the extreme opposite saying that Jews, Muslims and atheists can live a good life and that’s good enough. My main point is this: the Church has not always preached the same message so don’t say you did when you really didn’t. The gospel does not change.

Thanks for sharing your perspective here. Now at least we can know what we’re up against.

The early Church fathers also affirmed unquestionably the teaching from Scripture that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15), and that she always has the final say regarding the teachings of faith and morals. St. Augustine said that he personally would not even believe the gospel message itself without the authority of the Church that tells him was so. If the Church got it wrong about this teaching that it infallibly defined, then what about others? How could one rest assured he believes the truth about what books should be in the Bible or whether Jesus was really God in the flesh or whether Mary was rightly called the Mother of God? The Church defined these truths as she has defined others through her authority. It’s not based on our own personal opinions.

The Church does not now teach that simply living a good life will get one into heaven. Such teaching would be an oversimplification of what they must do in order to enter the Church if they are truly invincibly ignorant. Again one must interpret V2’s documents in light of the teachings that have gone before it. The Church in the middle ages also did not teach a Feeneyist interpretation of NSOC. The Church just firmly taught the truth that there is no salvation outside the Church which also means Jews, Muslims, Heretics, etc. No one who dies in such a state as being guilty of being a member of one of those false religions or sects cannot be saved. They must at the very minimum be converted to Christ through an implicit desire for baptism, which is animated by perfect charity. Since very very few if anyone who is not a member of the visible Catholic Church could be saved through such a desire, the Church did not think it necessary to make such a clarification nor would she be guilty of any neglect for now that she has explained the possibility people have obviously run wild with their explanations of ways to try to figure out how anyone who seems to be a “good person” outside the Church is saved, which is clearly contrary to the faith of all times.

 

[una_fides]

Ron Writes : What is taught today(Vatican II ) is a complete reversal of what was taught before. These councils and bulls were deliberately excluding non-Catholics. They were not concerned about being offensive.

Mal: Hense the worldwide Traditional Movement. dont assume that all “Catholics” dont recognise the irregularities and also dont assume it impossible that Heresy has in fact reared its ugly head in our time. There have been Heresies from within and from without throughout the history of the Catholic Church. The “Robber Council” comes to mind

" You can’t compare it to the Immaculate Conception. "

Mal: True - because the Immaculate Conception is Dogma. there is not a single Anathema in any document of Vatican II.

Good point. I should point out, that if the pope were to deny the immaculate conception, you would say he was a heretic, correct? And we know that a pope can be a heretic and can be condemned for heresy after he has died as was the case with pope Honorius I (see newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm). What if a pope were to deny that there is no salvation outside the Church and were to teach that Jews or Muslims who die as long as they seem to live a good life according to their conscience then they will be saved as Jews or Muslims outside of the Church? Wouldn’t that also constitute heresy? Granted none of us can depose a pope, but if someone takes what a pope says to be heresy, we must do all we can to explain it according to what the Church has always taught, or admit we don’t know the pope’s intended meaning in the original language it was spoken, or conclude that the pope has erred and needs to be set straight, such as what St. Paul did when he withstood St. Peter to the face. Any pope can define any teaching regarding faith or morals when he definitively chooses to do so but as a private theologian he is not protected from error.

 

[sidbrown]

And we know that a pope can be a heretic and can be condemned for heresy after he has died as was the case with pope Honorius I (see newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm). .

The Pope is infallible, and yet he is a heretic? Something is wrong here.

 

[StillWondering]

You may go to Zenit News on the date referenced.

Dear Sidbrown,

You have given a number of quotes that are highly suspect and have not given links to these quotes even after much request. I have went to Zenit News and searched and searched. There are 15000+ articles related to Pope Benedict. There are also much news on the day you referenced. Please provide the link because I cannot find it. In addition, note that Pope Benedict XVI was elected in 2005, five years after that supposed quote from the Pope.

 

[StillWondering]

The Pope is infallible, and yet he is a heretic? Something is wrong here.

What is in error is your understanding of infallible and heretic. The descriptions of infallibility has already been given here.

The pope is not technically not infallible in the way you are using the term because infallible is referring to a teaching. Documents are likewise not infallible because technically they cannot be. Documents can contain infallible teaching with the proper conditions. And a pope can teach infallibly with the proper conditions. As mentioned, the definitions of infallibility has been talked about much already in this thread as well as many other threads. Since you are using the term, to maintain credibility, please use the term as accurately as possible.

A heretic is a person who has committed heresy, or promoting doctrine or teaching that is in contract to what is understood to be orthodox in the respective setting the person has promulgated such doctrine or teaching. In regards to Catholicism from what I know, a heretic is a Catholic who teaches or promotes teaching and doctrine contrary that what is definitively taught by the Church.

 

[ron77nyc]

Any pope can define any teaching regarding faith or morals when he definitively chooses to do so but as a private theologian he is not protected from error.

Under those conditions just about any well informed Catholic could be infallible.

What is in error is your understanding of infallible and heretic. The descriptions of infallibility has already been given here.

We can find definitions, descriptions and all kinds of explanations of the meaning of infallibilty but what has not been given to us is an actual list of infallible proclamations. That’s like saying you have to obey the ten commandments but I’m not telling you what they are.

 

[una_fides]

The Pope is infallible, and yet he is a heretic? Something is wrong here.

The pope is only infallible under certain rare conditions! Please stop reading only the parts you want to read! This is frustrating!!

 

[una_fides]

Under those conditions just about any well informed Catholic could be infallible.

Whatever conditions you are alluding to, you need to read the one’s the Church gave, which apply only to the pope. Please read Vatican I and then comment from there.

We can find definitions, descriptions and all kinds of explanations of the meaning of infallibilty but what has not been given to us is an actual list of infallible proclamations. That’s like saying you have to obey the ten commandments but I’m not telling you what they are.

We have to follow the teachings of the Church as they have been handed down–all of them–to the extent the Church has mandated we must believe them. If the pope defines that we all must believe a dogma as divinely revealed, then we must believe it. If he defines that no one can hold a contrary opinion to a particular dogma, then it is bound and we cannot hold a contrary opinion. If the pope says that he thinks, x,y, and z, we are not bound to believe it or hold it unless it is something that has been elsewhere divinely revealed. Even if he publicly teaches x,y, and z as fact, it is not safeguarded by the charism of infallibility, but we should have a religious submission to his definitive teachings as coming from the vicar of Christ. That said, if the pope teaches something according to his ordinary teachings that seem to contradict previously defined dogmas, then we are bound to believe the previously defined dogmas, and we should then take the opportunity to try to reconcile the two statements and make sure we understand both correctly, all the while being humble and realizing that we do not have all the answers and are prone to error apart from God and his grace. That is why it is so important that we continually on a regular basis humbly beg God for light in understanding his truth. I heard that St. Thomas Aquinas used to do this regularly before the blessed sacrament and look where it got him–greatest and most influential doctor and theologian in the history of the Church.

 

[redrosetea]

If that’s true then Jesus allowed himself to be crucified for no reason. No one is capable of living an entire good life. All religions teach living a good life. The difference between Christianity and all the others is Jesus died for sinners. He died for those who were not able to live a good life.

You are twisting what I posted…If I and the priest that instructed me didn’t believe in Christ we wouldn’t be catholic…it all boils down to what you think rather than what the church has taught with you

You give your opinions instead of the churches…that is not how Catholics operate…We are faithful to the teachings of the magesterium…We don’t interpret scripture for ourselves

 

[rinnie]

I was taught than anyone that lived a good life will see God ,by a priest in the 1960’s when I converted pre Vatican II

Which does not make the Priest wrong. But did the Priest say that you do not have to believe and accept Jesus Christ. No he did not. See what I mean?

Another way of saying live a good life would be instead of using the Priests words use the Words of Jesus.

If you Love me keep my word. Same meaning different ways of saying the same teaching.

 

[rinnie]

Ron777 that is not true. Scripture says we can live a life without sin by the grace and desire to follow Jesus Christ. I agree its so so hard. But not impossible.

 

[redrosetea]

Yes I do and had we both not believe Jesus were God neither of us would be Catholic to begin with

Fr Groeschel, whom I think is a saint ,always says it is not up to us to decide how God reveals himself to others…anyone that dies in a state of Grace regardless of who they are will go to haven…because you can not lead a holy life without the Holy spirit being at work inside of you

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron777 that is not true. Scripture says we can live a life without sin by the grace and desire to follow Jesus Christ. I agree its so so hard. But not impossible.

If it were possible to live an entire good life from start to finish, there would be no need for confession.

 

[rinnie]

If it were possible to live an entire good life from start to finish, there would be no need for confession.

Oh? So you are saying that because we have confession and must confess our sins that we have to sin?

I am not disagreeing with you, I know that I have sin. But I also believe that by the Grace of God people can not have Grave sin in this world.

We can give our life up to God and with his Grace not have Mortal sin. We can and must actually strive for that.

The Blessed Mother did it.

 

[ron77nyc]

You are twisting what I posted…If I and the priest that instructed me didn’t believe in Christ we wouldn’t be catholic…it all boils down to what you think rather than what the church has taught with you

I’m not twisting anything. This is what you said.

I was taught than anyone that lived a good life will see God ,by a priest in the 1960’s when I converted pre Vatican II

That’s all you said. You didn’t say Catholics who live a good life will see God. You said anyone. Now that I’ve read your full explanation I agree with you.

 

[ron77nyc]

We can give our life up to God and with his Grace not have Mortal sin. We can and must actually strive for that.

The Blessed Mother did it.

The Blessed Mother is a great role model of obedience for anyone. I can’t argue with that.