Can the Church change its teaching?

[ron77nyc]

God’s old covenant was fulfilled in the New. The old taught and pointed to the new, and the new is its fulfillment and completion. The Jews are saved through the new covenant, which completed, fulfilled, and nullified the old. The old wasn’t “revoked” it was superseded by its fulfillment and completion in Christ.

I agree with everything you say and I’m not trying to be difficult but I am having trouble understanding why this is something new to the Catholic Church. I quoted the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent and they say the Jews who observe the Old Covenant do not have eternal life. This agrees with what Paul says.

Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

 

[Malleus_01]

I agree with everything you say and I’m not trying to be difficult but I am having trouble understanding why this is something new to the Catholic Church. I quoted the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent and they say the Jews who observe the Old Covenant do not have eternal life. This agrees with what Paul says.

Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Mal: Thats what the Church still teaches. St John Chrysostom called the synagoge a brothel. And a den of hyenas. No follower of Talmudic Judaism is saved by Talmudic Judaism.

 

[rinnie]

Yes, but the saints still were sinners and committed grievous sins. Look at St. Augustine for example prior to his conversion. The point is that everyone commits grievous sins and needs Christ’s forgiveness through his saving sacraments. Apart from the sacraments, salvation becomes an extremely difficult matter. It doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but it’s extremely difficult, rare, and unlikely for anyone to have perfect contrition, perfect charity, and supernatural faith who doesn’t even know they need those things or in most cases even know what they are.

Again are you stating your opinions here or do you have Church documents that teach these things? How did Christ “wipe out” original sin? Every human creature is still conceived in a state of original sin. The only way we know of that he becomes free from the guilt of original sin is through the sacrament of baptism (or at least the desire thereof animated by perfect charity). Even after baptism our human nature remains defective. We still are inclined to sin. Yes through Christ and through his grace we receive in the sacraments we have the ability and power to overcome these sins and refuse to give in to these inclinations, but nonetheless these powerful inclinations are there, and unfortunately, most people just give in.

We retain free will to choose good or evil, but due to the effects original sin still has on our human nature (even after baptism) we see sin in the wrong light as if it is something good or to be desired. It is only through Christ and his grace that we can see sin for what it is.

Mortal sin is not just the acting out of desires and venial sins are not just the desires. Such an understanding is overly simplistic as well as fundamentally flawed. We can and do commit mortal sins by just willfully engaging in the desire for the action to be completed. Lust and hatred are mortal sins! You don’t have to commit fornication or murder someone in order to have committed a mortal sin. Christ taught that if a man so much as looks on a woman to lust after her then he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Here is a great site on mortal sin that should hopefully explain things: saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html It uses Scripture and the Catechism and goes through the 10 commandments. Very good resource.

Hi Una fides, Okay original sin. Original sin the the sin that we got because Adam and Eve sinned. Now that was a sin that because of Adam and Eve we were all thrown out of the Garden of Eden. So we are all born into it. Okay Now. You know how they Call Jesus the New Adam, and the Blessed Mother the new Eve?

Okay now here is where you are getting confused. I did for awhile before too. Original sin is wiped out completely with baptism. Its done its over its forgiven. Now actual sin is where you are getting confused. Actual sin is indeed we agree the stain of Original sin, the URGE to sin, but Actual sin is what we do ourself. Jesus paid the full price for original sin. BUt actual sin he did not pay for. That is why he left us the sacraments and while his death and ressurrection made it possible with the sacraments, we still have to do our part. I am clear, or do I need to explain it better? Let me know.

 

[surritter]

Rinnie,

Both you and Una are correct. But if I may gently jump in – your terminology was a little sloppy.

You said, “…I agree the stain is still there, but his grace has overpowered sin.”

The term “stain” is usually used to refer to Original Sin itself. And Jesus didn’t automatically wipe that away. He gave us the sacrament of baptism which wipes away the stain.

What you meant is that the “effects” of Original Sin – namely concupiscence – remain.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

Both you and Una are correct. But if I may gently jump in – your terminology was a little sloppy.

You said, “…I agree the stain is still there, but his grace has overpowered sin.”

The term “stain” is usually used to refer to Original Sin itself. And Jesus didn’t automatically wipe that away. He gave us the sacrament of baptism which wipes away the stain.

What you meant is that the “effects” of Original Sin – namely concupiscence – remain.

Correct, sorry I should have said that by his dying on the cross for our sin (original sin) he made it possible by Baptism to have that sin washed away. But while the effects ( I call it stain left behind) remain, the actual Original sin is wiped away. What the effect that is left over (which is the urge to sin that remains in us) when we sin it is not original sin it is now called Actual sin. But Jesus left us the sacraments of confession to once again make us one with Christ again.

 

[StillWondering]

I agree with you on all the above but did the Church always teach this?

Well, I’m only 27, so I do not have first hand experience of much of history. However, my heart answers your question with “yes”. In order to explain why I think so, let’s look at Israel, the precursor of the Catholic Church. (I am taught that the Catholic Church is the New Israel by the way of the cross through the New Covanent; the Church is God’s *working *family in this day and age.)

Remember in the Old Testament how God is the God of Israel and that there were covenants with the people of Israel, God’s family, that God said must be obeyed? Well, notice also that throughout the Old Testament, there are non-Jews that are pleasing to God individually who were not given share in the covenant. In fact, after various idolatry incidents of Israel, the Jews were forbidden to marry and have much contact with the “unclean nations”. The sanction against foreigners in foreign lands (not in visitors to the Israel lands) came about because the people of Israel, instead of bringing all the nations to God became corrupt with pagan practices.

So how could God be pleased with some of the non-Jews if they were of the “unclean nations” and they do not have share in the covenant. Well, like Peter and the unclean animals in Acts, they are unclean to the Jews because the Jews fail to bring them to God. But to God, it is a different story. Only He can judge in their hearts. One incident comes to mind of a foreign nation that eventually conquered the Israel people that God was please with. These people, the Nevites (if I remember correctly) were going to be destroyed by God. But God in His mercy sent Jonah to call them to repentance. Jonah really didn’t want to because Jonah knows that if they repent, they will conquer Israel and oppress his people who themselves are in a sinful state. But God did not take no for an answer and got Jonah there irregardless. The Nevites repented and God spared them. So in effect, while they do not have the ordinary means of life, God has extraordinary means to offer them mercy. From what it sounds like the Nevites had much less demanded from them than the Jews. But having more demanded is the call to holiness.

From my limited knowledge and understanding, the above context helps me to best understand the Church. The Church is given much and in the New Covenant, God’s people is called to much, including evangelizing the world. And the Church teaches what it teaches for the good of the flock. While you quoted lines from popes that teaches us either the people of other religions or that other religions are doomed, understand who the Church is talking to. The Church teaches that abortion is murder, but we are not called to murder an abortionist. The Church teaches that contraceptives are evil, but we are not called to go into a condom factory and sabotage the process to leave holes in condoms.

The Church teaches us so that we know truth and foremost, so we, individually and as a community, can follow truth. Those Catholic faithfuls who read these statements are rightly taught they cannot practice any other religion. It is a serious sin, a mortal (literally:deadly) sin if we fit the criteria for mortal sins, to practice any other religion but that of the faith given to us by Christ through His Apostles within the One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church. What about those outside of the faith that know what the Church teaches. When they read the teachings they are told that they cannot continue their faith and need to enter the Body of Christ. And what about those that read the teaching but do not know the Catholic faith? Well, they are told truth but they do not have ears to hear. They are like those nations in ancient times who do not have the covenant but are exposed to it in parts and parcel. They can still be pleasing to God if God so chooses. However, since they do not understand Catholic teaching and are not interested in finding out why the Church teaches such, they do hear and so the words are lost on them. In other words, these words, may plant seeds, but are not going to affect them when they hear it. What about those that never hear the teaching, then they never refused the gift that the Church offers. In the end, we are all responsible for refusing or accepting the free gift of God’s love and relationship individually. What the Church teaches is for all peoples, but what we need to do is to understand it and follow it ourselves, while in community, yes, but as individuals in a united community.

I admit, maybe I’m poor at explaining this Ron. Hopefully what I said has been useful in this post. I offer a different perspective on the same truth I am talking about here. At least as far as I understand it right now. Look at Matthew, 15: 21-28. When you read Jesus’s words, do you hear Him condemning the lady’s child to death because Jesus is not here for her? You know Jesus as God who is love, justice and mercy. So if you read it and I ask you, “how could Jesus be so callous and mean?!” You would probably, in your faith in Him, say “no that can’t be right, let’s try to figure this out”. And you will probably explain to me that Jesus is not condemning the child, but calling the mother to great faith. What if I then say, “Jesus is just playing games then if He is calling her to great faith by calling her a dog!” You might be stumped *or *you might recognized that I am caught up in the word “dog” and its modern connotations and completely fail to recognize who Jesus is and what salvation really means–the fullness of relationship with God. It takes humility to hear what Jesus has said and to pursue Him. And it takes humility to hear what the Church speaks and trust enough to seek out the meaning of those words. However, those without ears to hear, those who in their arrogance, scoff at this Man because of the description of “dogs” would fail to see what Jesus is able and willing to do. Life and people are not so black and white, but we can take the path of humility and seek understanding and faith like the lady did or we can take the path of “we are right and they are wrong” and miss out on the chance of a life time to be with the Lord if the lady simply left in anger or defeat.

 

[Malleus_01]

<<<<Correct, sorry I should have said that by his dying on the cross for our sin (original sin) he made it possible by Baptism to have that sin washed away. But while the effects ( I call it stain left behind) remain, the actual Original sin is wiped away. What the effect that is left over (which is the urge to sin that remains in us) when we sin it is not original sin it is now called Actual sin. But Jesus left us the sacraments of confession to once again make us one with Christ again. >>>>

Mal: Thats correct. The guilt of Original Sin is washed away in Baptism. But the Stain of Original sin remains. And the punishments from GOD remain. Like pain in childbirth - The fact that we have to die and work for our bread and our propensity to Sin etc. But the guilt of Original Sin remains as well for those who are not Baptised.

Pax

 

[rinnie]

You say this so confidently. Can you provide any official sources at any point after the dogma was defined that says that the Blessed Mother “did have the stain of [original sin]”? The definition of the dogma itself says she was preserved entirely. Yes, her mother and father did have original sin, but the Blessed Mother was preserved from original sin as well as its affects. It is my understanding that since she was preserved from the moment of her conception that she did not inherit concupiscence. Here’s my source: Catholic Encyclopedia:

    In the Constitution *Ineffabilis Deus* of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

"The Blessed Virgin Mary…"
The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.
"…in the first instance of her conception…"
The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.
"…was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin…"
The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.
"…by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race."
The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ’s redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.
Such is the meaning of the term “Immaculate Conception.”

I didn’t believe I did. Mary without God would indeed have been under the power of sin. As it was God, by a special grace saved her from sin at very moment of her conception. And she was so full of God grace she did not sin her entire life. But what my point was she was saved at the very second of her conception. Do you see what I am saying. I agree with you she never had the stain of Original sin it was wiped away at the second of her conception by God. Where I was going with this is yes, Mary did need to be saved also. See what I mean. But she was saved by God. That was my point. Not that sin every hit her, but that because of God saving her it never did. I was just trying to beat the protestant punch we all need a Savior is all. Because we all do and she was also saved by God. That was my main point, but for some reason it all got blown up.

 

[rinnie]

There is no evidence that John the Baptist or Job never committed mortal sin. A

I will have to call you on John the Baptist. Luke 1:15 said John the Baptist will be filld with the Holy Spirit even from his mothers womb. Would you say a man who was filled with the Holy Spirit his entire life, even before he was born was a sinner?

Thats how also I say that we have proof that the Blessed Mother also never had sin. Luke 1:28 Hail full of Grace the Lord is with you;. Mary was also full of grace even before Jesus was conceived. Would someone full of grace, full of the very life of God be considered a sinner?

I know you agree with me completely on the Blessed Mother but I am just taking this opportunity to show others just cause is all.

 

[rinnie]

<<<<Correct, sorry I should have said that by his dying on the cross for our sin (original sin) he made it possible by Baptism to have that sin washed away. But while the effects ( I call it stain left behind) remain, the actual Original sin is wiped away. What the effect that is left over (which is the urge to sin that remains in us) when we sin it is not original sin it is now called Actual sin. But Jesus left us the sacraments of confession to once again make us one with Christ again. >>>>

Mal: Thats correct. The guilt of Original Sin is washed away in Baptism. But the Stain of Original sin remains. And the punishments from GOD remain. Like pain in childbirth - The fact that we have to die and work for our bread and our propensity to Sin etc. But the guilt of Original Sin remains as well for those who are not Baptised.

Pax

 

[ron77nyc]

Jesus paid the full price for original sin. BUt actual sin he did not pay for.

If Jesus did not pay for actual sin then who pays for it?

 

[ChestnutTree]

What you have with your example is the difference between a theological teaching which limbo is and a dogmatic statement of faith. Theological teachings may change but dogma is ever the same, only defended and further defined as necessary…ie to combat heresy.

Does it matter? I don’t think people actually asked themselves what the difference was between the two. Limbo was taught and people believed in it. Now it is different.

Error will always creep in that is why we should always be vigilant. The devil will always seek ways to destroy and confuse.

 

[surritter]

Of course there’s a difference.

By saying that we evolved directly from monkeys, do you take that as an authoritative declaration of truth? Or a scientific hypothesis? I hope you take it as the latter. If so, then you will have answered your own question.

Perhaps some teachers presented limbo as if it were a done deal, but simply having a teacher spout something doesn’t make it the infallible teaching!

 

[ron77nyc]

Well, I’m only 27, so I do not have first hand experience of much of history. However, my heart answers your question with “yes”. In order to explain why I think so, let’s look at Israel, the precursor of the Catholic Church. (I am taught that the Catholic Church is the New Israel by the way of the cross through the New Covanent; the Church is God’s *working *family in this day and age.)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I may have been unclear with what I was trying to say. What I’m trying to say is this: Since there is no time in eternity I now realize that the covenant made with Abraham was a faith honoring covenant just like the New Covenant, that went back in time as well as forward. My question is this: Why didn’t the popes of the middle ages, inspired by the same Holy Spirit that is guiding the Church today, teach the world about God’s love for the Jewish people when they were spelling out God’s plan of salvation?

 

[ChestnutTree]

Of course there’s a difference.

By saying that we evolved directly from monkeys, do you take that as an authoritative declaration of truth? Or a scientific hypothesis? I hope you take it as the latter. If so, then you will have answered your own question.

Perhaps some teachers presented limbo as if it were a done deal, but simply having a teacher spout something doesn’t make it the infallible teaching!

But then that leaves all teachings/beliefs not declared infallible open to be changed and leave people hanging. Think about all those people that believed the teaching that unbaptized babies were sent to limbo. The anguish that they felt must have been unbearable. Today the teaching is, I believe, is that we leave it in the hands of the God.

Let me give you an example of something taught but not declared infallible. I was taught as a catholic that Heaven was a place you go when you die. A couple of years ago, I read that PJP2 taught that heaven was a state-of-being. What happened?

 

[surritter]

But then that leaves all teachings/beliefs not declared infallible open to be changed and leave people hanging. Think about all those people that believed the teaching that unbaptized babies were sent to limbo. The anguish that they felt must have been unbearable. Today the teaching is, I believe, is that we leave it in the hands of the God.

Let me give you an example of something taught but not declared infallible. I was taught as a catholic that Heaven was a place you go when you die. A couple of years ago, I read that PJP2 taught that heaven was a state-of-being. What happened?

If you really thought that heaven was a geographical place, then your theological mindset was not wrong, but merely immature. John Paul helped explain heaven in a more mature fashion. But not contradictory. And above all, you should realize that what you were taught (that heaven is a place) was never an infallible doctrine of the Church.

As for the non-infallible things causing confusion, that need not be. Even in non-infallible things we should listen to the Church. But if they change that simply means that we shouldn’t get all worked up and fret.

 

[ChestnutTree]

If you really thought that heaven was a geographical place, then your theological mindset was not wrong, but merely immature. John Paul helped explain heaven in a more mature fashion. But not contradictory. And above all, you should realize that what you were taught (that heaven is a place) was never an infallible doctrine of the Church.

As for the non-infallible things causing confusion, that need not be. Even in non-infallible things we should listen to the Church. But if they change that simply means that we shouldn’t get all worked up and fret.

Is JP2 teaching on heaven infallible or is it just his personal teaching that could be changed/explained better later on by another Pope?

 

[surritter]

Is JP2 teaching on heaven infallible or is it just his personal teaching that could be changed/explained better later on by another Pope?

The Church infallibly teaches that there is a heaven and those who are blessed to partake of it have everlasting happiness in communion with God.

All the details, such as what you are asking, are not infallibly defined.

 

[una_fides]

Rahab the prostitute and many other sinners were made saints because of their faith.

No question here. I completely agree. I even cited St. Augustine as evidence earlier. That is my point. That no one lives without committing serious sins. God gives us grace to come to him and repent, but everyone falls into sin at some point in their lives. Hence, Romans 3:23: “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” The only exception was the Blessed Virgin Mary and of course her Divine Son, who just so happened to be almighty God in the flesh. Here is the key point to bring this all home: no human being can live their lives so free from sin to not need God’s sanctifying grace to regenerate his soul, and even after regeneration, due to man’s sinful human nature, he will inevitably continue to fall into sin, and for this reason, Christ gave us the sacrament of confession because perfect contrition is such an extremely rare commodity.

 

[una_fides]

I agree with everything you say and I’m not trying to be difficult but I am having trouble understanding why this is something new to the Catholic Church. I quoted the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent and they say the Jews who observe the Old Covenant do not have eternal life. This agrees with what Paul says.

Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Absolutely right. The Jews do not have salvation through the Old Covenant. They can only have salvation in its fulfillment, which is the New. Salvation only comes through Jesus Christ. The question is whether one can accept Jesus Christ without having a conscious knowledge of whom Jesus Christ is and what he did. There is theological speculation that one could be a Jew and be raised a Jew and have perfect contrition and charity (somehow) and thereby have an implicit baptism of desire. Of course, such a person would, in my opinion and that of Aquinas and many others, inevitably come to the Catholic faith because of his openness to God’s grace and truth. The problem is that Jews are not taught to make perfect acts of contrition nor do they even know what that is. How then does one by his own natural means make such acts? The simple answer is that he does not. It is only a supernatural drawing and a complete openness on the part of the person that he can be capable of being that dependent on God and open to his will and truth.

Thinking back to my entire past life as a protestant (I converted to the Church at 23), I honestly can’t think of any time I made acts of perfect contrition and charity. I do recall constantly humbly begging God for light from heaven and always praying every time before I read and studied my Bible that God would lead me in his truth. I do recall an openness to God and his leading. But I never recall any perfect charity and contrition. I never even knew what that was, and now that I know I never recall ever thinking that I’m sorry because I love God for who he is. I never even believed that contrition was necessary to have for ones sins! I just believed they were already forgiven! Do you see the danger here of thinking that it’s easy for non-Catholics to be saved? And I was baptized and practicing my faith and honestly open to God. I believe that God drew me to his Church and the fullness of his truth, not because of my own merits or goodness, but just because I was willing to cooperate and didn’t let pride get in the way of God’s call. Trust me I don’t deserve to be Catholic. I deserve hell for my sins, as does every other human being. But I thank God for his grace!