Changing Dogma (Vatican 1 vs 2) ????

  • Thread starter Thread starter mesl4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mesl4

Guest
Hello, I’m leaning towards converting to Catholicism (from Protestantism/Evangelical). I’m attending a class on the Catholic Church at a Catholic Church and the priest is going over Vatican II documents and comparing w/Vatican I. This is very confusing. He says all in both councils/documents are dogmas and infallible. But, he shows how they’ve changed in many ways as society has changed. (ie. Vatican 1 - a mortal sin to visit a non-Catholic church, excommunicated/ anathema if not Catholic. Vatican 2-it’s OK to go to a different church, non-believers may even be saved. ) So if the pope was infallible in Vatican 1, than how can Vatican 2 change things? The priest also said dogma can’t change, but doctrine can, yet says the Vatican documents are dogma…so how can they change? I don’t get it. Makes me doubt the church’s teaching on infalliblilty (and I know, that pertains to faith and morals when Pope speaks ex cathedra, but the preist said that was the case in those documents, plus, salvation issues are issues of faith and morals).
 
mesl4 said:
Hello, I’m leaning towards converting to Catholicism (from Protestantism/Evangelical). I’m attending a class on the Catholic Church at a Catholic Church and the priest is going over Vatican II documents and comparing w/Vatican I. This is very confusing. He says all in both councils/documents are dogmas and infallible. But, he shows how they’ve changed in many ways as society has changed. (ie. Vatican 1 - a mortal sin to visit a non-Catholic church, excommunicated/ anathema if not Catholic. Vatican 2-it’s OK to go to a different church, non-believers may even be saved. ) So if the pope was infallible in Vatican 1, than how can Vatican 2 change things? The priest also said dogma can’t change, but doctrine can, yet says the Vatican documents are dogma…so how can they change? I don’t get it. Makes me doubt the church’s teaching on infalliblilty (and I know, that pertains to faith and morals when Pope speaks ex cathedra, but the preist said that was the case in those documents, plus, salvation issues are issues of faith and morals).
Click to expand...
  1. Dogma cannot change.
  2. What portion of Vatican I is being quoted (Session, Title, Canon)?
  3. What do you mean when you post “OK to go to a different church”?
 
banjo said:
  1. Dogma cannot change.
  2. What portion of Vatican I is being quoted (Session, Title, Canon)?
  3. What do you mean when you post “OK to go to a different church”?
Click to expand...
  1. I don’t have the book in front of me.It was Lumen Gentium. We read through it in class. We each had a book to read from It was paragraphs 14-17 is all I know. Discussed a difference between the institutional church that was focused on prior to Vatican II, and the mystical church (not part of an institution) focused on in II.
    3 It was not even allowed to go to a non-catholic church in V1 days, and now it’s OK to vist/go to a Protestant wedding/baptism/go to church w/a friend who invites you, etc. as long as you also go to mass. I don’t think the V2 document specifically said this, but it is implied by saying all who seek God may be saved, etc. The priest is telling us to go visit in order to write a paper about the differences and one of the students said in V1 days that was a mortal sin. THe priest agreed and said that is not the case now. Thus…dogma changed, right?
 
What you are referring to in the case of going or not to a non-Catholic church is a matter of discipline, not doctrine.I think if you were to look deeper, you would find that the Church has not said that only Catholics can be saved, but that it is through the Church as the body of Christ that all are saved. That is not the same thing. There is also invicible ignorance, and also other things I am not experienced in, but they matter in what you are talking about. The Church’s doctrine does not change, but it does develop. Sometimes the emphasis changes as well.
 
The example you cite, of Catholics visiting non-Catholic churches, does not represent a change in dogma or doctrine but a change in discipline (church law) that occurred when the Code of Canon Law was revised following Vatican II.

The doctrine that those who, through no fault of their own, are invincibly ignorant of Jesus Christ and his Catholic Church may be saved has not changed; it was taught before Vatican I and is still taught today.
 
mesl4 said:
Hello, I’m leaning towards converting to Catholicism (from Protestantism/Evangelical). I’m attending a class on the Catholic Church at a Catholic Church and the priest is going over Vatican II documents and comparing w/Vatican I. This is very confusing. He says all in both councils/documents are dogmas and infallible. But, he shows how they’ve changed in many ways as society has changed. (ie. Vatican 1 - a mortal sin to visit a non-Catholic church, excommunicated/ anathema if not Catholic. Vatican 2-it’s OK to go to a different church, non-believers may even be saved. ) So if the pope was infallible in Vatican 1, than how can Vatican 2 change things? The priest also said dogma can’t change, but doctrine can, yet says the Vatican documents are dogma…so how can they change? I don’t get it. Makes me doubt the church’s teaching on infalliblilty (and I know, that pertains to faith and morals when Pope speaks ex cathedra, but the preist said that was the case in those documents, plus, salvation issues are issues of faith and morals).
Click to expand...
Let me rephrase some of his statements:

“in both councils/documents are dogmas and infallible. But, he shows how they’ve changed in many ways as society has changed. (ie. Vatican 1 - a mortal sin to visit a non-Catholic church, excommunicated/ anathema if not Catholic. Vatican 2-it’s OK to go to a different church, non-believers may even be saved. )”

In the documents from both Councils there are Dogmas and Doctrines (unchanging teachings) that are presented or re-presented. They are applied to new and different changing situations in the world.

In the world situation of Vatican I, the teaching that it is mortal sin to promote, support, or encourage the separation of Christians and Christianity was seen in attending a non-Catholic Community’s worship service. In the world of Vatican II, it is still a mortal sin to promote, support, or encourage the separation of Christians and Christianity. However when necessary and with good reason a Catholic attending a non-Catholic service is not seen as doing this. Especially since the number of mixed marriages between Vatican I and Vatican II has increased many times over.

“So if the pope was infallible in Vatican 1, than how can Vatican 2 change things?”

The Pope is just as Infallible after Vatican II as he was well before Vatican I.

“The priest also said dogma can’t change, but doctrine can, yet says the Vatican documents are dogma…so how can they change?”

Dogma and Doctrine are both unchangable and infallible teaching, Our understanding of Doctrine can and does develop but it never fundmentally changes at it’s core.
 
mesl4 said:
  1. I don’t have the book in front of me.It was Lumen Gentium. We read through it in class. We each had a book to read from It was paragraphs 14-17 is all I know. Discussed a difference between the institutional church that was focused on prior to Vatican II, and the mystical church (not part of an institution) focused on in II.
    3 It was not even allowed to go to a non-catholic church in V1 days, and now it’s OK to vist/go to a Protestant wedding/baptism/go to church w/a friend who invites you, etc. as long as you also go to mass. I don’t think the V2 document specifically said this, but it is implied by saying all who seek God may be saved, etc. The priest is telling us to go visit in order to write a paper about the differences and one of the students said in V1 days that was a mortal sin. THe priest agreed and said that is not the case now. Thus…dogma changed, right?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the “institutional church that was focused on prior to Vatican II, and the mystical church (not part of an institution) focused on in II.” are simply different aspects of the One Catholic Church.
 
mesl4 said:
Hello, I’m leaning towards converting to Catholicism (from Protestantism/Evangelical). I’m attending a class on the Catholic Church at a Catholic Church and the priest is going over Vatican II documents and comparing w/Vatican I. This is very confusing. He says all in both councils/documents are dogmas and infallible. But, he shows how they’ve changed in many ways as society has changed. (ie. Vatican 1 - a mortal sin to visit a non-Catholic church, excommunicated/ anathema if not Catholic. Vatican 2-it’s OK to go to a different church, non-believers may even be saved. ) So if the pope was infallible in Vatican 1, than how can Vatican 2 change things? The priest also said dogma can’t change, but doctrine can, yet says the Vatican documents are dogma…so how can they change? I don’t get it. Makes me doubt the church’s teaching on infalliblilty (and I know, that pertains to faith and morals when Pope speaks ex cathedra, but the preist said that was the case in those documents, plus, salvation issues are issues of faith and morals).
Click to expand...
It’s not the Catholic Church you need to be doubting. It’s the priest.

He is doing a terrible job of explaining doctrine and dogma, and clearly is doing a pitiful job explaining the documents of Vatican I and Vatican II.

Indeed neither Dogma nor doctrine can change. Doctrine can develop more fully, such as the way in which the doctrine of the Trinity developed over the first three hundred years of the Church until the language and doctrines were precise and full.

There is not one thing in the documents of Vatican II that contradict or change anything the Church has taught in the last 2000 years, including the council of Vatican I.

The examples you give are difficult to straighten out b/c we don’t know what specific parts of each document you are referring to. However, I can tell you the example you gave doesn’t make any sense.
 
1ke said:
It’s not the Catholic Church you need to be doubting. It’s the priest.

He is doing a terrible job of explaining doctrine and dogma, and clearly is doing a pitiful job explaining the documents of Vatican I and Vatican II.

Indeed neither Dogma nor doctrine can change. Doctrine can develop more fully, such as the way in which the doctrine of the Trinity developed over the first three hundred years of the Church until the language and doctrines were precise and full.

There is not one thing in the documents of Vatican II that contradict or change anything the Church has taught in the last 2000 years, including the council of Vatican I.

The examples you give are difficult to straighten out b/c we don’t know what specific parts of each document you are referring to. However, I can tell you the example you gave doesn’t make any sense.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I was hoping that was the case. I figured there would be an explanation but it is hard since I haven’t actually seen any Vatican 1 document to compare, I’m just going by what the priest said/class remarks were. Are the documents available online? I guess it’d be hard to find the specific parts that deal w/this though.
 
mesl4 said:
Thank you. I was hoping that was the case. I figured there would be an explanation but it is hard since I haven’t actually seen any Vatican 1 document to compare, I’m just going by what the priest said/class remarks were. Are the documents available online? I guess it’d be hard to find the specific parts that deal w/this though.
Click to expand...
To access Lumen gentium click on the following link:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

I believe all of Vat II document are available at the same website.
 
katy said:
What you are referring to in the case of going or not to a non-Catholic church is a matter of discipline, not doctrine.I think if you were to look deeper, you would find that the Church has not said that only Catholics can be saved, but that it is through the Church as the body of Christ that all are saved. That is not the same thing. There is also invicible ignorance, and also other things I am not experienced in, but they matter in what you are talking about. The Church’s doctrine does not change, but it does develop. Sometimes the emphasis changes as well.
Click to expand...
Mes14,
Katy is right. There is a difference between discipline and dogma. An example of dogma would be that Jesus was born of a virgin, or rose from the dead. An example of discipline would be that we are obliged to abstain from eating meat on Friday, or the Roman Church ordains only unmarried men who are celibate. Discipline can change. Dogma can not.

The example of the teaching on non-Catohlics going to heaven is not clear to me. I have not read the documents of Vatican I, but recall a controversy prior to Vatican II where a priest named Father Feeney was excommunicated for teaching that all non-Catholics do not go to heaven. His followers were called Feeneyites. So if VI taught they can not go to heaven and VII changed that, why was he excommunicated before VII for teaching what VI taught?

I believe the Church has always held that non-Catholics can go to heaven. The Church teaches that non-Catholic baptisms are valid and that baptism washes away all sin. So if a child or adult were baptized validly in some Protestant sect and died of a heart attack going home, having no new sin, that soul would go to heaven. It would be a contradiction to teach baptisms are valid, but the baptized can not go to heaven. Secondly, the Church teaches that perfect contrition brings forgiveness of sin.

If you are interested in learning about dogma there is a book called Essentials of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott, (or Von Ott; I can not remember).

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top