Changes in Catholic teaching

[eric3141]

I am Catholic because I was told it teaches the same things handed down by the apostles unchanged but perhaps clarified over time. Yet more and more I see actual changes in doctrine. If one is going to be a member of a church that changes it’s doctrinal teaching then there are other churches I’d prefer to be a member of just because I like their liturgy better.

Examples:

Before the 1960’s or 1970’s the Popes and saints taught that wives had to obey their husbands. In the last 40 years or so not a peep about this. And the Vatican is quite aware that priests and bishops are commonly teaching that wives do not have to obey their husbands as everything is to be done by joint decision. Nowhere is this found in the tradition yet it is what is taught today.

Annullments: my grandmother got pregnant at age 17 and got married as a result. If she had later gotten divorced and applied for an annullment on these grounds it would have been denied as that did not invalidate a marriage. Today my spiritual advisor (a very faithful and conservative priest) tells me that getting married because you are young and pregnant will be grounds for getting an annullment because her will was not “free” somehow. Before this did not invalidate a marriage but today it does. 2/3 of all annullments come from North America – on a practical basis it is divorce and remarriage under another name.

No salvation outside the Church: before Pope Pius IX, the Popes taught a very literal understanding of this. I have read the exhaustive list of papal quotes on this and before the 1800’s they had a very literal teaching on this subject. One must at least be a catechumen to get into heaven. After Pius IX that all went out the window and now people who have never hearrd of the Catholic church can get into heaven.

I have no vested interest in any of the 3 items I listed above. My point is that Church teaching on each of them has changed.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Examples:

Before the 1960’s or 1970’s the Popes and saints taught that wives had to obey their husbands. In the last 40 years or so not a peep about this. And the Vatican is quite aware that priests and bishops are commonly teaching that wives do not have to obey their husbands as everything is to be done by joint decision. Nowhere is this found in the tradition yet it is what is taught today.

Yesterday’s Sunday readings at Mass were very clear of the teaching of wives submitting to their husbands. The Church has not changed its position on this, whether priests do their job and preach about it is another story but that is not the same as changing a doctrine.

Annullments: my grandmother got pregnant at age 17 and got married as a result. If she had later gotten divorced and applied for an annullment on these grounds it would have been denied as that did not invalidate a marriage. Today my spiritual advisor (a very faithful and conservative priest) tells me that getting married because you are young and pregnant will be grounds for getting an annullment because her will was not “free” somehow. Before this did not invalidate a marriage but today it does. 2/3 of all annullments come from North America – on a practical basis it is divorce and remarriage under another name.

An annulment means something prevented the marriage from being valid. That is far different than divorce. It is basically the difference between a contract being invalid because prerequisites were not met versus tearing up the contract when you dont want to follow it anymore. Unless you know the actual intimate details of a person’s marriage you nor a priest can say for sure what is or is not a valid marriage.

No salvation outside the Church: before Pope Pius IX, the Popes taught a very literal understanding of this. I have read the exhaustive list of papal quotes on this and before the 1800’s they had a very literal teaching on this subject. One must at least be a catechumen to get into heaven. After Pius IX that all went out the window and now people who have never hearrd of the Catholic church can get into heaven.

That teaching meant you could not knowingly stay apart from the Catholic Church and be saved. It did not address those who through no fault of their own were out, in fact the Church teaches Baptism by Orthodox and Protestants for example is valid, thus a person who is validly Baptized is saved unless they commit mortal sin.

I have no vested interest in any of the 3 items I listed above. My point is that Church teaching on each of them has changed.

There has been clarifications on some of what you said, but none of it has changed in the sense they are no longer true.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yesterday’s Sunday readings at Mass were very clear of the teaching of wives submitting to their husbands. The Church has not changed its position on this, whether priests do their job and preach about it is another story but that is not the same as changing a doctrine.

An annulment means something prevented the marriage from being valid. That is far different than divorce. It is basically the difference between a contract being invalid because prerequisites were not met versus tearing up the contract when you dont want to follow it anymore. Unless you know the actual intimate details of a person’s marriage you nor a priest can say for sure what is or is not a valid marriage.

That teaching meant you could not knowingly stay apart from the Catholic Church and be saved. It did not address those who through no fault of their own were out, in fact the Church teaches Baptism by Orthodox and Protestants for example is valid, thus a person who is validly Baptized is saved unless they commit mortal sin.

There has been clarifications on some of what you said, but none of it has changed in the sense they are no longer true.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The Church has not, does not and never will change doctrine.
Deacon Ed B

 

[johnco]

hi,

disciplines may change, doctrine, never.

God bless,

johnco