I know of Traditions (like the canon of scripture,) that can’t change. But recently I’ve heard people use the Church’ position on freedom of religion and slavery pre-Vatican ll to support their ideas about the church changing her teachings… also the same thing with these deaconesses in the early church. Some help would be much appreciated.
There are doctrines that are known as ‘de fide,’ which are necessary for belief if one is Catholic. The theologian Ludwig Ott attempted to compile a list of them, but his list is disputed. The issue isn’t as simple as looking it up in the catechism or some Vatican reference book.
This is how I think of it(and I may be absolutely wrong, so don’t take this as absolute): if a Church Council solemnly proclaims a teaching, such as the Trinity or the dual natures of Christ, then that is de fide. If a doctrine or practice has existed continually since the apostolic era then it is essentially de fide. Other doctrines slowly develop in the Church’s mind, over centuries, and sometimes become more accepted, sometimes less. If the doctrine becomes (near)universally accepted, and stays that way for some time, then it is again essentially de fide. If that universally accepted belief is declared ex cathedra by the Pope, then it actually becomes de fide.
For example, the immaculate conception is a belief that has existed since Christian antiquity, but it was understood in different ways, and accepted by some and rejected by others, back and forth and off and on for many centuries. Gradually the doctrine developed a solid form, and that form was agreed upon by consensus, and that consensus was declared by the Pope ex cathedra.
The male priesthood has existed continually since the apostolic era with no serious objection, and really goes back to the Jewish temple. I don’t know if this has ever been formally declared at a council, but it can be considered essentially de fide. It might not have the formal stamp on it, but it could get it tomorrow if needed.
Things like the Church’s position on religious freedom, however, are not a part of the faith, per se, but a statement of the Church’s opinion on a worldly issue as guided by their current understanding. These can change, and have. The controversy arises over whether or not these changes are justified in light of the broader tradition, and that’s a healthy debate to have over any change of opinion in the Church.
Instead of thinking of the Church as a fixed set of rules, it’s more accurate to think of it as a dialogue between Christians as guided by the Holy Spirit. Some things are revealed, and those become fixed. Everything else is given a degree of importance based on many factors.
In my opinion, the best thing to do is look at how Christians have believed over time and in different places, and see what things are held in common. I believe there is a shared, fundamental core that unites us throughout history, and across cultural and national borders, and this core is the unchanging essence of our Catholic faith.
