Catholicism And Doctrinal Changes

[Reformed1]

Okay, I have a question about doctrine/dogma and whether it can change or be modified.

It is my understanding that your church teaches that dogma can’t actually change but can be modified. I don’t fully understand this.

The case I am thinking of is the “outside the church there is no salvation” teaching which I believe is considered to be dogmatic by your church.

I’m no expert on your faith so bare with me here but I understand the Church of a century or two ago had a very narrow understanding of this and believed that me or anyone else formally outside of your Church would be doomed.

Now, it is also my understanding that a pope (don’t know who or when) came along and said something to the effect that those who are “invincibly ignorant” could be saved. I also believe your latest church documents refer to non-Catholic Christians as “serperated bretheren”.

So, we have on the one hand the Catholic Church teaching a very narrow interpretation of the doctrine in the past and now adopting a more mild interpretation of this now.

One could argue that the Church changed its teaching. One could also argue that the Church just applies a teaching from the past differently due to the fact that the world of Christianity is much more complicated since the Reformation.

I would appreciate your comments as to whether or not you see this as a change or not a change and why.

Just so we are clear, I am not attacking or bashing but only asking.

 

[VociMike]

Okay, I have a question about doctrine/dogma and whether it can change or be modified.

It is my understanding that your church teaches that dogma can’t actually change but can be modified. I don’t fully understand this.

The case I am thinking of is the “outside the church there is no salvation” teaching which I believe is considered to be dogmatic by your church.

I’m no expert on your faith so bare with me here but I understand the Church of a century or two ago had a very narrow understanding of this and believed that me or anyone else formally outside of your Church would be doomed.

Now, it is also my understanding that a pope (don’t know who or when) came along and said something to the effect that those who are “invincibly ignorant” could be saved. I also believe your latest church documents refer to non-Catholic Christians as “serperated bretheren”.

So, we have on the one hand the Catholic Church teaching a very narrow interpretation of the doctrine in the past and now adopting a more mild interpretation of this now.

One could argue that the Church changed its teaching. One could also argue that the Church just applies a teaching from the past differently due to the fact that the world of Christianity is much more complicated since the Reformation.

I think this is the situation. We don’t say that doctrine can be modified, but that it can and does develop. “Modified” implies an external agent acting on a thing, while “develop” implies that the thing changes according to what it always was destined to be. Can you see the difference?

I would appreciate your comments as to whether or not you see this as a change or not a change and why.

Just so we are clear, I am not attacking or bashing but only asking.

As you say, there was a time when the world was just Catholics and everybody else (let’s say Jews and pagans). The situation seemed pretty black and white to those Catholics. Then the Orthodox schism happened, followed by the Protestant schism, and now there were people who claimed to be Christians but also were quite obviously not in visible unity with the Church. This situation led the Church to reach a deeper understanding of what it meant to be in the Church. This understanding was not reached earlier because there was no trigger to dig deeper. This is the same with all the doctrinal clarifications which the Church, mostly through her Councils, has made during the years. These clarifications include many developments which the Protestant world agrees with, such as the relevant Council teachings on the nature of the Trinity and the nature of the hypostatic union.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And besides, the doctiine has not changed. “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” remains true. All those who are saved, whether they are Protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists, or pagans (or anything I may have missed), are saved through the Catholic Church. We don’t know how; it’s a mystery. But that is the way it is.

 

[Della]

I’m no expert on your faith so bare with me here but I understand the Church of a century or two ago had a very narrow understanding of this and believed that me or anyone else formally outside of your Church would be doomed.

Now, it is also my understanding that a pope (don’t know who or when) came along and said something to the effect that those who are “invincibly ignorant” could be saved. I also believe your latest church documents refer to non-Catholic Christians as “separated brethren”.

So, we have on the one hand the Catholic Church teaching a very narrow interpretation of the doctrine in the past and now adopting a more mild interpretation of this now.

One could argue that the Church changed its teaching. One could also argue that the Church just applies a teaching from the past differently due to the fact that the world of Christianity is much more complicated since the Reformation.

Others have dealt with the development of doctrine, so I will just touch on this part of your question.

The Church has always taught that salvation is through Christ and the Church, but it has never defined that to mean that only Catholics can be saved. This is important to keep in mind.

What you are referring to, although I’m sure you don’t realize it, is the Church’s position on those who left the Church (especially during the Reformation) who knew what the Church taught and who willfully and willingly left for heretical beliefs opposed to Catholic teachings. Those who do so were/are called “formal” heretics. For them there is no salvation unless and until they repent.

What the Church has recognized is that there are many Protestants who were brought up Protestant and so cannot be guilty of knowingly and willfully rejecting the Church’s teachings. These are called “material” heretics, a lesser state of being and one for which they may claim “invincible ignorance,” as may anyone brought up outside the Catholic Church who does not know what the Church teaches.

Salvation is in Christ through his Church, but just how that salvation may be applied to individual souls is something the Church does not speculate about, but leaves to the mercy and justice of God.

 

[John_Henry]

Okay, I have a question about doctrine/dogma and whether it can change or be modified.

It is my understanding that your church teaches that dogma can’t actually change but can be modified. I don’t fully understand this.

The case I am thinking of is the “outside the church there is no salvation” teaching which I believe is considered to be dogmatic by your church.

I’m no expert on your faith so bare with me here but I understand the Church of a century or two ago had a very narrow understanding of this and believed that me or anyone else formally outside of your Church would be doomed.

Now, it is also my understanding that a pope (don’t know who or when) came along and said something to the effect that those who are “invincibly ignorant” could be saved. I also believe your latest church documents refer to non-Catholic Christians as “serperated bretheren”.

So, we have on the one hand the Catholic Church teaching a very narrow interpretation of the doctrine in the past and now adopting a more mild interpretation of this now.

One could argue that the Church changed its teaching. One could also argue that the Church just applies a teaching from the past differently due to the fact that the world of Christianity is much more complicated since the Reformation.

I would appreciate your comments as to whether or not you see this as a change or not a change and why.

Just so we are clear, I am not attacking or bashing but only asking.

The teaching of the Church is still the same. What has changed is the world in which we live, which necessarily alters how the teaching is applied. Thus, in Catholic Europe, where most people were Catholic, anyone who left the Church placed their soul in grave peril, affected, of course, by their level of understanding of what they were doing. In a world where many people aren’t Catholic, where many people never hear the Catholic message, let alone in a way that enables them to overcome their ignorance, many people are thus not culpable for remaining outside the Church. Living for so long now in such a state has forced the Church to come to a clearer understanding of the various factors at work, as well as to a clearer understanding of how baptism brings all Christians into some form of communion, although imperfect, with the Catholic Church, who still believes she is the universal sacrament of salvation in the world.

 

[buffalo]

It is like a bush, it can only get fuller, it cannot be cut back and restarted. This is what we refer to as growing organically. We can gain a fuller understanding.

 

[aj830]

Isn’t any truth that other Christian Churches have come from out of the Catholic Church? So technically they are being “saved” by the Catholic Church due to our teachings that they kept when they broke off.

 

[Nick_Jones]

And besides, the doctiine has not changed. “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” remains true. All those who are saved, whether they are Protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists, or pagans (or anything I may have missed), are saved through the Catholic Church. We don’t know how; it’s a mystery. But that is the way it is.

Regarding the way of salvation, Jesus said, “I am the way”

The RCC says, “We are the way.”

No man can serve two masters.

 

[Penitus]

Regarding the way of salvation, Jesus said, “I am the way”

The RCC says, “We are the way.”

No man can serve two masters.

the RCC is not anyone’s master. Christ established the Church to be the force to which the world knows about Christ (Mt 28:19-20).

Without the Church, no one would know about Christ.
Without the Church, there would be no Bible.
Without the Church, there is no salvation.

 

[Nick_Jones]

the RCC is not anyone’s master. Christ established the Church to be the force to which the world knows about Christ (Mt 28:19-20).

Without the Church, no one would know about Christ.
Without the Church, there would be no Bible.
Without the Church, there is no salvation.

It is interesting that you first say, “the RCC is not anyone’s master.”

Then you try to establish reasons why the RCC is our master! You say:

“Without the Church, no one would know about Christ.
Without the Church, there would be no Bible.
Without the Church, there is no salvation.”

Instead, why not give credit where it is due:

Without the work of the Holy Spirit, no one would know about Christ.
Without the work of the Holy Spirit, there would be no Bible.
Without the work of the Holy Spirit, there is no salvation."

Without giving God alone the glory, there would only be idol worship (the glorification of things or people).

 

[Penitus]

It is interesting that you first say, “the RCC is not anyone’s master.”

Then you try to establish reasons why the RCC is our master! You say:

“Without the Church, no one would know about Christ.
Without the Church, there would be no Bible.
Without the Church, there is no salvation.”

Instead, why not give credit where it is due:

Without the work of the Holy Spirit, no one would know about Christ.
Without the work of the Holy Spirit, there would be no Bible.
Without the work of the Holy Spirit, there is no salvation."

Without giving God alone the glory, there would only be idol worship (the glorification of things or people).

You have done nothing but prove exactly what the Catholic Church teaches…the Church IS the work of the Holy Spirit, and that is where credit is due. Praise God the Holy Spirit for His work, which is the Church.

 

[Nick_Jones]

I think this is the situation. We don’t say that doctrine can be modified, but that it can and does develop. “Modified” implies an external agent acting on a thing, while “develop” implies that the thing changes according to what it always was destined to be. Can you see the difference?

There are indeed instances in which doctrine develops over time, but the CC has actually changed some of its teachings in such a way as to contradict what it had taught earlier. The CC position on “no salvation outside of the [RC] Church” is just one example of this. To justify itself, Rome tries to say that Protestants are Catholics too! Protestants are “separated bretheran” but not really outside of the Roman Church!

 

[Penitus]

There are indeed instances in which doctrine develops over time, but the CC has actually changed some of its teachings in such a way as to contradict what it had taught earlier. The CC position on “no salvation outside of the [RC] Church” is just one example of this. To justify itself, Rome tries to say that Protestants are Catholics too! Protestants are “separated bretheran” but not really outside of the Roman Church!

First, the RCC’s doctrine on salvation outside of the Church has never changed, only developped.

Second, where has Rome ever said that Protestants are Catholics too?

 

[Della]

Regarding the way of salvation, Jesus said, “I am the way”

The RCC says, “We are the way.”

No man can serve two masters.

There is no division between Christ and his Church. Remember what the Glorified Christ asked Paul on the road to Damascus: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” Jesus was talking about Paul’s persecution of the Church, of which Christ is the Head and we are the Body–a theme Paul wrote much on. There are not two masters to serve between Christ and his Church–there is no choice that has to be made between them because they are one.

 

[Nick_Jones]

You have done nothing but prove exactly what the Catholic Church teaches…the Church IS the work of the Holy Spirit, and that is where credit is due. Praise God the Holy Spirit for His work, which is the Church.

I only wish that the CC would make it more obvious that her whole mission is the honor and glory of God. Instead, it usually seems that CC apologetics is really more focused on defending, honoring, and glorifying itself. Do you see what I mean, or am I being too harsh?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

It is interesting that you first say, “the RCC is not anyone’s master.”

Then you try to establish reasons why the RCC is our master! You say:

“Without the Church, no one would know about Christ.
Without the Church, there would be no Bible.
Without the Church, there is no salvation.”

Instead, why not give credit where it is due:

Without the work of the Holy Spirit, no one would know about Christ.
Without the work of the Holy Spirit, there would be no Bible.
Without the work of the Holy Spirit, there is no salvation."

Without giving God alone the glory, there would only be idol worship (the glorification of things or people).

Good point:thumbsup:

 

[Della]

There are indeed instances in which doctrine develops over time, but the CC has actually changed some of its teachings in such a way as to contradict what it had taught earlier. The CC position on “no salvation outside of the [RC] Church” is just one example of this. To justify itself, Rome tries to say that Protestants are Catholics too! Protestants are “separated bretheran” but not really outside of the Roman Church!

Did you get the chance to read my previous post on this topic? It’s #4 on the thread. I think it may help you understand what the Church’s position is and always has been.

 

[Penitus]

I only wish that the CC would make it more obvious that her whole mission is the honor and glory of God. Instead, it usually seems that CC apologetics is really more focused on defending, honoring, and glorifying itself. Do you see what I mean, or am I being too harsh?

I don’t think you’re being harsh, I think we just see things from a different perspective. For example, let’s say you are a Pentecostal who denies Mary’s Heavenly Queenship.

You might say such a belief detracts from God’s glory.
I would say that Mary can only be Queen BECAUSE Jesus is King. Therefore, it all gives the greater glory to God.

 

[VociMike]

Regarding the way of salvation, Jesus said, “I am the way”

The RCC says, “We are the way.”

No man can serve two masters.

Perhaps you have forgotten who is the head of the Church, and how the head relates to the body.

 

[Rolltide]

The idea that people who aren’t Catholic can be saved by invincible ignorance has been around for a LOT longer than people think. Some people try to say that this idea developed with Vatican II, but in fact, it’s been around since before the Council of Trent. The Catholic Church had two major issues that it had to deal with that had never existed as issues up to that time. First, the number of Protestant denominations was expanding. Some decision had to be made regarding the interpretation of this rule to them. BUT… the issue was alive even before the Reformation, because of the discovery of the New World in 1492. The Catholic Church had a theological decision to make. How was it that God had created two entire continents of people that did not know Christianity, nor could they have before that point? Were all of the native Americans that lived before Columbus doomed to hell simply because the had been born in isolation? It was at this point that the Catholic Church had to modify it’s doctrine, and that invincible ignorance came about. It was a natural development that expanded the understanding of the doctrine. It did not change the doctrine itself.