Can the Church change its teaching?

[rinnie]

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

 

[Diak]

V2 was not dogmatic by its own intention and admission.

This is blatantly erroneous. There are two DOGMATIC CONSTITUTIONS of that very Council.

Also from the time of the Fathers, there has been an understanding of the difference between theologumena, namely theological opinion, and dogma.

 

[una_fides]

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.

Do you know anyone personally who has never committed a grave sin? I sure don’t. That means they never would have willfully entertained so much as one impure thought in their lives or never committed the sin of masturbation so much as once, never willfully lied or stolen, etc etc… I find that very unlikely that you know adults that you can say certainly fit in that category. Again I most certainly do not know anyone. Even the holiest Catholics I know have committed many sins and need confession and these were people who have been raised being fed the body of God and being taught the truth their whole lives. Imagine people who have never even received the graces in baptism!? They are in a constant state of evil. They are not at all in a state of grace and inevitably will be fulfilling the lusts of their flesh and will be violating that natural law written on their hearts.

 

[una_fides]

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.

The Blessed Mother was also conceived without sin. No one else (other than Jesus) has not contracted original sin and had to suffer with its effects. Our human nature itself is defective! It is born lacking! We need Christ to fill it, and even after our souls have been filled and washed clean in baptism we still have concupiscence, which is that incentive to sin, that propensity within us that tells us that if we do wrong it will produce some sort of good / pleasurable result for us. Without the sacraments, it’s a very very very sad state for humanity, lost in the flood of sin, outside the sole ark of salvation, the Catholic Church.

 

[una_fides]

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

Amen! Now that’s the stuff! Ron this was hands down your best post yet!

 

[una_fides]

This is blatantly erroneous. There are two DOGMATIC CONSTITUTIONS of that very Council.

Also from the time of the Fathers, there has been an understanding of the difference between theologumena, namely theological opinion, and dogma.

Not when you think about it. Despite the fact that it had the dogmatic constitutions, the head of the Council itself, the pope, said it was not dogmatic and that it did not invoke infallibility to define any dogmas of the faith. The Council was explicitly a dialogue and a “pastoral council” intended to state the Church’s same teachings in a different way to a different audience (the world) with a different intended focus (mercy). There were no anathemas given, no dogmas defined, no doctrines proscribed as necessary to be believed, etc. The Council proposed a universal dialogue and pastoral approach that was only binding according to the Church’s ordinary Magisterium and as such requires religious submission (unless any of its contents seem to contradict previously defined dogmas in which case the Church is to be petitioned for a clarification, such as the case with religious liberty).

 

[rinnie]

I have yet to have anyone here show me an official teaching of the Church that the church changed. I am still waiting for that.

So the answer still remains NO. If it is an official teaching it came from the Power of the Holy Spirit and it stands as the RCC and the HS stands forever.

 

[rinnie]

The Blessed Mother was also conceived without sin. No one else (other than Jesus) has not contracted original sin and had to suffer with its effects. Our human nature itself is defective! It is born lacking! We need Christ to fill it, and even after our souls have been filled and washed clean in baptism we still have concupiscence, which is that incentive to sin, that propensity within us that tells us that if we do wrong it will produce some sort of good / pleasurable result for us. Without the sacraments, it’s a very very very sad state for humanity, lost in the flood of sin, outside the sole ark of salvation, the Catholic Church.

I pretty much agree with most of what you are saying. But be carefull. The Blessed Mother was saved from original sin also but at the moment of her conception. We have to make it clear on this. Because her Mother and Father had original sin she did have the stain of it, but was saved immediately at conception. Which I am sure you meant.

BUt what I am saying we can go through this world rejecting sin. Just because we have the incentive to sin, we can reject it. But yes so few do. But there are many that do. That is why we call them Saints. They have through the grace of God been granted the strength to not give into these desires to react on sin.

Our human nature is no longer lacking because Jesus Christ wiped out Original Sin. But the desire is still there. But we have that Grace from Jesus to over power that desire. So while he erased the sin I agree the stain is still there, but his grace has overpowered sin.

And my proof is this, when we feel that desire to sin, we still have control from free will to sin or not to sin. God made that possible. We cannot blame others, while they may have played a part in pushing us to sin, it is Gods grace that can give us the power to push back and not give into the sin.

While I agree venial sin is the desire at times, venial sin is not the same as mortal sin, acting on it. Venial sin will not keep us from heaven, but mortal sin will.

 

[rinnie]

Do you know anyone personally who has never committed a grave sin? I sure don’t. That means they never would have willfully entertained so much as one impure thought in their lives or never committed the sin of masturbation so much as once, never willfully lied or stolen, etc etc… I find that very unlikely that you know adults that you can say certainly fit in that category. Again I most certainly do not know anyone. Even the holiest Catholics I know have committed many sins and need confession and these were people who have been raised being fed the body of God and being taught the truth their whole lives. Imagine people who have never even received the graces in baptism!? They are in a constant state of evil. They are not at all in a state of grace and inevitably will be fulfilling the lusts of their flesh and will be violating that natural law written on their hearts.

I can’t say I did personally, But I can say that God did say all things are possible through him. I would say John the Baptist could hold a pretty good candle to sin. I think he would be one that pretty much filled the ticket. From the teachings of the Word he was pretty much perfected in Christ. I think Job pretty much did real well also. Let me keep thinking!

 

[ron77nyc]

I have yet to have anyone here show me an official teaching of the Church that the church changed. I am still waiting for that.

This is what the Council of Florence said. It and Hebrews 8 say the same thing. It says the Old Covenant is gone and the New Covenant must be observed in order to attain salvation.

“The sacrosanct Roman Church … firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after Our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; … All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it (the Roman Church) declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”

 

[ron77nyc]

BUt what I am saying we can go through this world rejecting sin. Just because we have the incentive to sin, we can reject it. But yes so few do. But there are many that do. That is why we call them Saints. They have through the grace of God been granted the strength to not give into these desires to react on sin.

While I agree venial sin is the desire at times, venial sin is not the same as mortal sin, acting on it. Venial sin will not keep us from heaven, but mortal sin will.

Even if we commit a mortal sin we can still become a saint if we confess and turn from that sin before we die. That’s the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Anyone of any religion who is not participating in the New Covenant is trying to earn God’s favor with good behavior.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.

 

[rinnie]

Even if we commit a mortal sin we can still become a saint if we confess and turn from that sin before we die. That’s the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Anyone of any religion who is not participating in the New Covenant is trying to earn God’s favor with good behavior.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.

While I agree with you that yes by his death on the Cross Jesus took away sin and made it possible for us to repent and confess and be forgiven in this world. But where I disagree with you, if I am understanding you correctly we still must obey his commandments in the NC just like the OC. Which could be considered good behavior.

 

[rinnie]

This is what the Council of Florence said. It and Hebrews 8 say the same thing. It says the Old Covenant is gone and the New Covenant must be observed in order to attain salvation.

“The sacrosanct Roman Church … firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after Our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; … All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it (the Roman Church) declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”

But see love the OC was never gone it was fullfilled by Jesus Christ. There is quite a difference. Like the ten commandments. They never changed. Nothing really changed. Its just alot of people did not understand alot of things in the O.C and Jesus set then straight is all. While I agree Jesus did replace certain things with others nothing really changed as far as the teachings. Disciplines perhaps.

 

[StillWondering]

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

You forgot that that Catholic individual needs to be Pope as well =). Essentially, it is not the man, by himself, that has the charism of infallibility. It is the office held by the man. I do not mean that the office speaks without a man. Nor am I saying that it’s the man who speaks without the authority of the office. It is the man who speaks form the authority of the office as Pope.

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.

As for infallible statements. I only know of two declared by Popes.: Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. I hope that helps =).

Note: There are statements made that are infallible, which can be made by anyone, that are not declared by popes but have been made by popes. Examples include, God is one. God is Lord. Jesus is God. These are all infallible because infallible just means it is describing the objective truth which invariably refers to God since God is the source of all truths.

 

[Malleus_01]

<<<<, But see love the OC was never gone it was fullfilled by Jesus Christ. There is quite a difference. Like the ten commandments. They never changed. Nothing really changed. Its just alot of people did not understand alot of things in the O.C and Jesus set then straight is all. While I agree Jesus did replace certain things with others nothing really changed as far as the teachings. Disciplines perhaps. >>>>

Mal: The argument being the Old Covenant was replaced by the New is factually incorrect. Jesus is the Word made Flesh. Jesus perfected the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant didnt save anyone. Only the Blood of Christ saves. The Gates of Heaven remained shut until the Son of GOD died on the Cross. When Jesus Said - No one cometh to the Father but by Me - he meant it. No one has entered Heaven except by the Lord Jesus Christ.

From the Summa

Article 5. Whether Christ opened the gate of heaven to us by His Passion?
Objection 1. It would seem that Christ did not open the gate of heaven to us by His Passion. For it is written (Proverbs 11:18): “To him that soweth justice, there is a faithful reward.” But the reward of justice is the entering into the kingdom of heaven. It seems, therefore, that the holy Fathers who wrought works of justice, obtained by faith the entering into the heavenly kingdom even without Christ’s Passion. Consequently Christ’s Passion is not the cause of the opening of the gate of the kingdom of heaven.

Objection 2. Further, Elias was caught up to heaven previous to Christ’s Passion (2 Kings 2). But the effect never precedes the cause. Therefore it seems that the opening of heaven’s gate is not the result of Christ’s Passion.

Objection 3. Further, as it is written (Matthew 3:16), when Christ was baptized the heavens were opened to Him. But His baptism preceded the Passion. Consequently the opening of heaven is not the result of Christ’s Passion.

Objection 4. Further, it is written (Micah 2:13): “For He shall go up that shall open the way before them.” But to open the way to heaven seems to be nothing else than to throw open its gate. Therefore it seems that the gate of heaven was opened to us, not by Christ’s Passion, but by His Ascension.

On the contrary, is the saying of the Apostle (Hebrews 10:19): “We have [Vulgate: ‘having a’] confidence in the entering into the Holies”–that is, of the heavenly places–“through the blood of Christ.”

I answer that, The shutting of the gate is the obstacle which hinders men from entering in. But it is on account of sin that men were prevented from entering into the heavenly kingdom, since, according to Isaiah 35:8: “It shall be called the holy way, and the unclean shall not pass over it.” Now there is a twofold sin which prevents men from entering into the kingdom of heaven. The first is common to the whole race, for it is our first parents’ sin, and by that sin heaven’s entrance is closed to man. Hence we read in Genesis 3:24 that after our first parents’ sin God “placed . . . cherubim and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” The other is the personal sin of each one of us, committed by our personal act.

Now by Christ’s Passion we have been delivered not only from the common sin of the whole human race, both as to its guilt and as to the debt of punishment, for which He paid the penalty on our behalf; but, furthermore, from the personal sins of individuals, who share in His Passion by faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. Consequently, then the gate of heaven’s kingdom is thrown open to us through Christ’s Passion. This is precisely what the Apostle says (Hebrews 9:11-12): “Christ being come a high-priest of the good things to come . . . by His own blood entered once into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption.” And this is foreshadowed (Numbers 35:25-28), where it is said that the slayer* “shall abide there”–that is to say, in the city of refuge–“until the death of the high-priest, that is anointed with the holy oil: but after he is dead, then shall he return home.” [The Septuagint has ‘slayer’, the Vulgate, ‘innocent’–i.e. the man who has slain ‘without hatred and enmity’.]

Reply to Objection 1. The holy Fathers, by doing works of justice, merited to enter into the heavenly kingdom, through faith in Christ’s Passion, according to Hebrews 11:33: The saints “by faith conquered kingdoms, wrought justice,” and each of them was thereby cleansed from sin, so far as the cleansing of the individual is concerned. Nevertheless the faith and righteousness of no one of them sufficed for removing the barrier arising from the guilt of the whole human race: but this was removed at the cost of Christ’s blood. Consequently, before Christ’s Passion no one could enter the kingdom of heaven by obtaining everlasting beatitude, which consists in the full enjoyment of God.

Reply to Objection 2. Elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven, but not in to the empyrean heaven, which is the abode of the saints: and likewise Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise, where he is believed to live with Elias until the coming of Antichrist.

Reply to Objection 3. As was stated above (Question 39, Article 5), the heavens were opened at Christ’s baptism, not for Christ’s sake, to whom heaven was ever open, but in order to signify that heaven is opened to the baptized, through Christ’s baptism, which has its efficacy from His Passion.

Reply to Objection 4. Christ by His Passion merited for us the opening of the kingdom of heaven, and removed the obstacle; but by His ascension He, as it were, brought us to the possession of the heavenly kingdom. And consequently it is said that by ascending He “opened the way before them.”

 

[StillWondering]

Even if we commit a mortal sin we can still become a saint if we confess and turn from that sin before we die. That’s the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Anyone of any religion who is not participating in the New Covenant is trying to earn God’s favor with good behavior.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.

Ron, I see a number of great comments form you that speaks from the heart of the Catholic faith. [And some that are appears to be missing the mark.] I’m really unsure of why you feel the Church changes it’s teaching. Perhaps you have difficulty with concrete versus dynamic concepts. Are you an engineer or technician by trade?

Maybe another way you can look at it begins with the truth that Jesus is fully human and fully God. The Church is his Body. The Church is His earthly body, and the Church stones are us . The parts that are Him, expressed by the doctrines and dogmas as well as the Liturgy, like Him cannot change. However, while the Church is an extension of Jesus Himself and so is the source of salvation for the whole world–those that accept this free gift–the Church is also us getting together, growing in our faith, and seeking union with God. There is that dichotomy of perfect meets us. We are saints by virture of our baptism but we are also in the process of sanctifying ourselves to be with Him who is the only Good and Holy.

Given all of the above, ask the same question, “Can the Church change it’s teaching?” from the heart of the Church. What does change mean? The Liturgy cannot change. And yet it has change. But has it? Well no. Every season we change the vestment colors, and when old vestments fade away we get new ones. Also, the choice of sitting and standing also change. These represents the disciplines and ideas the Church or it’s Church members have and explore. While at the same time the Liturgy has not and cannot change. There has always been a Liturgy of the Word. This is the same Jewish practices in the temples in the Old Testament. Christ went up and read the readings. And there is the Liturgy of the Word. You cannot have Mass without the Eucharist and Precious Blood, no matter what Rite you use and where it is done. Even illicit, or Mass that is not properly allowed, needs to have a proper Liturgy of the Eucharist to be valid. As an aside, this is way technically most other Christian communities cannot be called churches–church is an old world for the assembly [of people] which the age old pattern of liturgy of words and a proper sacrifice.

Similarly, when we talk about Church teaching, do we mean what we were taught as members of the Church by other more authoritative members of the Church or do we mean what the Church promulgates. If it’s the latter, it is like the Liturgy in that it cannot change. It is the official teachings. The reason it cannot change is because it is reflections of the objective reality. When we are a child we are not taught many details of the Mass, such as the prayers the priest makes in silence, or why the consecration always starts with blessing God for His Gifts, or why in the epiclesis, the order is always bread then wine. Maybe some are taught this as a child, but a lot of us were never taught this. Yet I’m pretty sure they are all details of the Mass that are always there. There are a lot more that goes on at Mass, such as the sign of peace and the collection baskets. But neither of those are ever present.

---

Ron and others who have not heard this audio series, I highly suggest it. It is about salvation history going through the entire story part of the bible. It should definitely help those that are unclear at how the Old and New Testament connects in the eyes of the Church.
ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-306548622&T1=scott+hahn

 

[ron77nyc]

But see love the OC was never gone it was fullfilled by Jesus Christ. There is quite a difference. Like the ten commandments. They never changed. Nothing really changed. Its just alot of people did not understand alot of things in the O.C and Jesus set then straight is all. While I agree Jesus did replace certain things with others nothing really changed as far as the teachings. Disciplines perhaps.

Under the OC man had to atone for himself and man didn’t have anything worth that much except his own life so he could not make atonement and still live. Without Jesus his own life was his atonement.

 

[ron77nyc]

Mal: The argument being the Old Covenant was replaced by the New is factually incorrect. Jesus is the Word made Flesh. Jesus perfected the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant didnt save anyone. Only the Blood of Christ saves. The Gates of Heaven remained shut until the Son of GOD died on the Cross. When Jesus Said - No one cometh to the Father but by Me - he meant it. No one has entered Heaven except by the Lord Jesus Christ.

I know Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, the commandments are still for today and there is a relation between the Old & New covenants and God will save His chosen people the Jews but is that what the Church has always taught? The Church has always taught supersession. The new replaces the old. The Church never taught salvation for Jews, Muslims or Protestants. Hindus, atheists and pagans were a no brainer. They were out there where the busses don’t run.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.htm

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session VI - Celebrated on the thirteenth day of January, 1547 under Pope Paul III
CHAPTER I
THE IMPOTENCY OF NATURE AND OF THE LAW TO JUSTIFY MAN
The holy council declares first, that for a correct and clear understanding of the doctrine of justification, it is necessary that each one recognize and confess that since all men had lost innocence in the prevarication of Adam,[3] having become unclean,[4] and, as the Apostle says, by nature children of wrath,[5] as has been set forth in the decree on original sin,[6] they were so far the servants of sin[7] and under the power of the devil and of death, that not only the Gentiles by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom, though free will, weakened as it was in its powers and downward bent,[8] was by no means extinguished in them.

Canon 1.
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

 

[sidbrown]

Ron and others who have not heard this audio series, I highly suggest it. It is about salvation history going through the entire story part of the bible. It should definitely help those that are unclear at how the Old and New Testament connects in the eyes of the Church.
ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-306548622&T1=scott+hahn

Is it true that the audio seriies that you ae recommending is not an infallible document, and therefore, it could contain errors.

 

[JM_Wells]

Is it possible for the church to change its teaching on something, or would that mean that it was previously in error? Or is it okay that it may have been in error, if it wasn’t an infallible teaching?

What’s coming to mind is that I have read the church used to teach that babies who died without being baptized could not be saved. Now, I understand that is not the teaching.

Yes and no,

Understand that there is a difference between changing certain aspects of teaching and changing doctrine itself.

Anti-Catholics, usually of the more Protestant variety, tend to cling to the misconception that Vatican II “changed” everything. They misunderstand how church teaching and the changing thereof works. It is one thing to say “The Church will no longer require that masses be in Latin”, or that “Catholics are no longer obliged to abstain from eating meat every Friday”. These are customs, which can change over time. There is no wrongdoing in changing customs to better adapt to social evolution.

However, you will never see the Church change its mind on the Divinity of Christ, the Assumption of Mary, the existence of an afterlife, the Communion of Saints, the Sanctity of Life, Marriage etc. etc. etc. These are doctrines; they are fundamental to what Catholics must believe. Basic study of history will show you that they haven’t changed and will not change.

Read “What Catholics Really Believe” by Karl Keating, as this mostly derives from his concepts. (I felt compelled to acknowledge that). It will put things in a clear perspective.

Hope this helps. God Bless.

“Wells”