Do modern Catholic church teachings trump those from the past?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Polak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Polak

Guest
A discussion I am taking part in in another thread has brought about this question.

Does a current or recent piece of doctrine from the Catholic church trump a previous one, if it states something that is very different from the previous one?

Let’s say the Catholic church releases something now that contrasts greatly with something they said 500 years ago. The two simply don’t go together. Does this mean the teaching from 500 years ago is voided? It could work the same way with something a Pope said now being the polar opposite of something a Pope said 500 years ago. Both are unfailable, so how would this work?

If for instance a Pope from the past said something wrong, it means people in those times would have followed this teaching, and been wrong to follow them. That brings up another question. If a Pope said something that was wrong and people followed this for the rest of their lives, are they exonerated because they were simply following the teachings of the Catholic church?
 
Last edited:
Doctrine doesn’t change.

Popes don’t “say something wrong”. (Edited to add, meaning in the context of a doctrinal statement, see my clarifying post below as the OP apparently took my statement literally, which I was not expecting.)
 
Last edited:
Well there are some quotes from Pope Pius V that many people on this forum would say are outrageously anti-semitic.

So those aren’t wrong?
 
Polak said:
Well there are some quotes from Pope Pius V that many people on this forum would say are outrageously anti-semitic.

So those aren’t wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes, they are wrong. Many popes have said and done the most outrageous things. Not everything a pope says qualifies as doctrine. Anti-semitic rants, for example.
 
Last edited:
Not everything Popes say automatically becomes Catholic doctrine. And papal infallibility is only an issue when the Pope speaks infallibly, not when he gives off the cuff remarks or says something in a speech.
 
Last edited:
Polak said:
This also poses a problem with papal infallibility.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t. The Church has never taught that every thing a Pope says is “infallible”. The requirements for something being infallible are very limited and very strict.
 
Given that papal infallibility only occurs at certain times and is very limited and strict, as you say, Catholics have the right, if they feel inclined to do so, to disregard anything the Pope says when he isn’t speaking infallibly. Essentially you are saying we can pick and choose.
 
Doctrines and the moral law don’t change. What was true 100 years ago is still true today. What was objectively wrong yesterday is still wrong today. What may change is the discipline of the Church. As times and circumstances change so also the discipline of the Church may change.
 
Polak said:
Essentially you are saying we can pick and choose.
Click to expand...
No, that is your very incorrect interpretation, and does not logically follow from what I wrote.

Just because something is not infallible does not automatically mean that it is worthless. Some things are, and some things aren’t. Not everything a Pope utters is doctrine.

You really need to study up on what infallibility means. Avoid “Traditionalist” websites, though, because they are often full of misinformation and nonsense.
 
Salibi said:
Not everything Popes say automatically becomes Catholic doctrine. And papal infallibility is only an issue when the Pope speaks infallibly, not when he gives off the cuff remarks or says something in a speech.
Click to expand...
Please provide examples of doctrines having changed. “Anti-semitic comments”, if indeed that’s what they were, do not rise to the level of doctrine.

The closest thing I can think of, is the Church’s teaching on usury — the taking of any interest whatsoever, not just excessive or “biting” interest. This is an incredibly complicated subject and requires delving into economics and the nature of money in different types of economies, to discuss properly.

We are obliged to give the Church consent of mind and heart even when she does not speak with ex cathedra infallibility. There is such a thing as the ordinary infallibility of the magisterium — commonly held moral doctrines and so on.

And there has been a tendency in our time, especially with the exaggerated emphasis on personality that so many have (possibly driven by media access, and/or seeking after an authority figure in turbulent times) to hang onto every word of the Holy Father, and elevate his personal opinions, preferences, and comments to the level of doctrine. This has been especially true of John Paul II and Francis (not so much with Benedict XVI).
 
Polak said:
You’ll have to convince others like @Tis_Bearself then.

This also poses a problem with papal infallibility.
Click to expand...
Jbrady doesn’t need to “convince” me. I took your question to mean “wrong” in a sense of giving a doctrinal or infallible statement.

God protects his Church from such errors. For example, the Pope does not proclaim the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and then 10 years later it turns out to be a mistake. That’s what I mean by Popes not saying something “wrong”. I did not think you would take my statement literally.

Popes are human and they no doubt say things from time to time that are questionable or less than holy. Some of them have been big sinners, one of them was very likely insane. But even those Popes did not promulgate “wrong” doctrines.
 
The subject of papal infallibility comes up frequently. With it comes the question of whether the faithful are obliged to listen to everything the pope says and writes.

I have found this statement regarding ex-cathedra declarations made by popes:

There is no set list of ex cathedra teachings, but that’s because there are only two, and both are about Mary: her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950).

If there were only two such statements made by popes, then what are we to do with the encyclicals, the papal bulls, other instructions, statements, pronouncements and off-the-cuff remarks made by popes?
 
Last edited:
That’s actually a good question, even to the Vatican.
There is some debate/ controversy over whether the infallibility doctrine is useful or necessary.
One problem with it is the arguments over whether certain teachings of the Church are or aren’t truly “infallible”. As you said, when the Pope makes it crystal clear he is making an infallible statement, no problem, but in other cases the Popes have made statements that are not so clear.
 
Last edited:
Well, the people speaking have been correct in a sense, but they have neglected that infallibility does not simply rest with the Pope. Papal infallibility is important but it is not limited to ex cathedra statements. The ordinary magisterium of the Church is also infallible.

Consider the apostles’ creed or the Nicene creed or the doctrine of the Trinity. NONE of these were ex cathedra statements of the Pope. Are they infallible teachings? You betcha.

The other ‘peg’ if you will is the Pope AND all (not just some) of the bishops teaching something in unity. That would also come under the charism of infallibility.

So a papal bull is doctrinal but doctrine can develop. A doctrine that was not fully understood some 400 years ago can have aspects that in today’s fuller understanding do not agree, but it can’t do a 180.

So a papal bull that say spoke about slavery as it was understood 500 or 600 years ago and dealt with it as a fait accompli did so because the full understanding of the wrongs of chattel slavery—which itself was not fully understood or always practiced—would have, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit be NOW understood in a different way. But the appearance of ‘acceptance’ of slavery (in a socioeconomic way) due to the understanding of humanity at a point in time does not mean that the Church was ‘wrong’ then and ‘right’ now.
Look if you will at societal understanding of abortion. Right now throughout most of the world, abortion is seen as a ‘right’. For many many centuries, in the Church especially, it was seen as a hideous wrong. It is still seen as such. But try to tell the average Catholic woman today that it’s wrong, and she’ll tell you it’s LEGAL, it’s NECESSARY, and get the heck out of her bedroom.

If you say that slavery’s morality, currently understood is ‘immoral’ now but was moral ‘then’, and find fault with that, what then is your position regarding abortion?

Meaning, a great wrong (slavery then, abortion now) can be both poorly understood, widely accepted by society and even the Church at some point in certain ways, but development of understanding can lead to new ways to address it.

Now abortion has never been accepted by the Church but people will point out that ‘quickening’ was often understood as the ‘start’ of a pregnancy and that only after that was abortion seen as a crime; if one didn’t ‘know’ that a child existed because the child had not quickened, then taking ‘tonics’ to ‘purify’ the body (which led to early loss of the pregnancy) was still seen as wrong if it could be recognized that a pregnancy had been lost DELIBERATELY but not to the full ‘legal’ extent of ‘abortion. That doesn’t mean the Church didn’t think the first action was wrong (It did), it just meant the canonical penalties were not so severe.

But as far as “modern teachings”? It isn’t a question of ‘trump’ because NO ‘modern’ teaching accepted as part of the Deposit of Faith has differed so much from ‘older’ teachings to be completely different. Only better understood
 
Polak said:
@Jbrady you sound very condescending when you write.
Click to expand...
He sounds pretty reasonable to me. You asked a question about papal infallibility and it’s clear you didn’t quite understand what it meant. That’s all. There’s no hostility.
 
That sounds very reasonable. As I read your stetement, this came to mind.

“the pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in his wisdom”

This came from the joint declaration of Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Egypt. The document itself is not under question. The above cited statement is taken from the Koran (more of less) and it does seem to contradict the basic tenets of Catholicism.
I know that some will claim that I am taking it out of context. I have read “the context” and understand its purpose. However, the above cited statement seems to undermine the foundation of our faith.
It is a public statement and can’t be easily ignored. Has this now become part of the magisterium?
 
Polak said:
A discussion I am taking part in in another thread has brought about this question.

Does a current or recent piece of doctrine from the Catholic church trump a previous one, if it states something that is very different from the previous one?

Let’s say the Catholic church releases something now that contrasts greatly with something they said 500 years ago. The two simply don’t go together. Does this mean the teaching from 500 years ago is voided? It could work the same way with something a Pope said now being the polar opposite of something a Pope said 500 years ago. Both are unfailable, so how would this work?

If for instance a Pope from the past said something wrong, it means people in those times would have followed this teaching, and been wrong to follow them. That brings up another question. If a Pope said something that was wrong and people followed this for the rest of their lives, are they exonerated because they were simply following the teachings of the Catholic church?
Click to expand...
When discussing Dogma & Doctrine, no it does not. Dogma & Doctrine cannot “trump” or conflict with the past.

Disciplines on the other hand can change. So in one way, you could say a modern discipline has “replaced” an older discipline as the normative, but it doesn’t mean the older one was “trumped.”

For example: women wearing head coverings. This discipline used to be mandatory. Today, it is simply a pious custom, but it was not “trumped.” Same can be said about fasting from midnight before receiving communion. Even though the current discipline is only fasting for one hour, people may fast from midnight if they like.

The only way a modern discipline would “trump” an older one is if the modern one was more strict. However, I’m currently not aware of such a discipline.

I pray this helps.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top