Do modern Catholic church teachings trump those from the past?

[adamhovey1988]

This is the way it was explained to me, basically a Papal statement is infallible, when it has the mark of infallibility. That’s not to say we should discard everything the Pope says that isn’t infallible.

 

[phil19034]

Avoid “Traditionalist” websites, though, because they are often full of misinformation and nonsense.

Your post was great until this sentence.

Instead of saying “avoid ‘Traditionalist’ websites…” you should have said “avoid heretical and/or schismatic websites.”

While there are some heretical so called Traditionalists, you are making a very uncharitable statement by claiming that all “traditionalists” are heretical and/or schismatic.

• The Fraternity of St. Peter is not heretical nor schismatic
• The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest is not heretical nor schismatic
• The Canons Regular of St. John Cantius are not heretical nor schismatic
• The Institute of the Good Shepherd is not heretical nor schismatic
• Plus, many, many more.

There are many “Traditional” groups who are 100% in good standing with the Rome. Please don’t paint with such a wide brush.

God Bless

 

[stpurl]

No, it is not part of the magisterium.
I, like you, was concerned when this document was released. Like so many statements in the Church especially in the last 60 years, it is couched in ambiguous language and concepts where one MIGHT read the statement as orthodox in teaching, and others read it as in fact disagreeing with the orthodox teaching.

But the Church moves in centuries, not days, or months, or even years. What is questionable at one point of time will, God willing, be dealt with later.

 

[Salibi]

That’s not to say we should discard everything the Pope says that isn’t infallible.

You’re right, of course. I’m afraid I was too general in my post. I should have been more precise.

Please provide examples of doctrines having changed. “

I’m sorry, but I never said anything about doctrines having changed. I was pointing out that a Pope saying something does not necessarily make it doctrine.

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

:+1:t2::+1:t2:

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Please provide examples of doctrines having changed. “

I’m sorry, but I never said anything about doctrines having changed. I was pointing out that a Pope saying something does not necessarily make it doctrine.

I was asking the OP. Sorry that wasn’t clear.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Does a current or recent piece of doctrine from the Catholic church trump a previous one,

Doctrines and dogmas do not change. Not everything a Pope says is infallible. He can sin, yes. He can say something on a nondoctrinal level that is in error but the Church itself, does not change doctrines.

It is also a heresy to believe that what is new and novel is better than what is old or traditional.

The Catholic church stands on three legs: Magisterium, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. All must be followed. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and does not lead it into error.

Avoid “Traditionalist” websites,…misinformation and nonsense

phil19034:

Your post was great until this sentence.

I could not agree more with @phil19034. @Jbrady , you just threw out a huge part of the Catholic church which provides good solid instruction. Tradition is part of what binds us as Catholics and there are many good excellent traditional websites, priests, societies, communities and more. Catholic Tradition is not nonsense.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

I think so, yeah, especially when it comes to infallible declarations of dogma.

 

[Uriel1]

“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.

The Catholic view is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
"Salus extra ecclesiam non est " “There is no salvation outside the Church” from Letter LXXII of Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258)
The Catholic Church considers non Catholics as being deprived of the ordinary means of Salvation no matter how excellent their intentions*. This dogma of Faith has been solemnly and infallibly defined on three occasions, and the documents of the Second Vatican Council, which include no solemn definitions whatsoever, can only be understood in light of the Church’s constant infallible teaching:

1. Pope Innocent III (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, Dz. 430 ): “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”

2. Pope Boniface VIII (Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302, Dz. 468-469 ): “With Faith urging us, we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church, and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church, outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin. … Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

3. Pope Eugene IV (Council of Florence, 1441, Dz. 714 ): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” ___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[MagdalenaRita]

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.

You are correct, this is not part of our faith. The Abu Dabi statement is not an infallible document and has not any dogmatic statement in it. It does contradict the Catholic faith as has been handed down to us from the time of Christ and the apostles.

It is a public statement and can’t be easily ignored. Has this now become part of the magisterium?

It is absolutely not part of the magisterium.

 

[Dovekin]

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?

Usually. Scripture and Tradition interpreted by the Magisterium is the Church’s way of teaching. This means that the teaching Church (Magisterium) interprets any past teaching from the Magisterium (Tradition). In virtually all cases, you should respect and follow the current Magisterium.

 

[Uriel1]

Usually. Scripture and Tradition interpreted by the Magisterium is the Church’s way of teaching. This means that the teaching Church (Magisterium) interprets any past teaching from the Magisterium (Tradition). In virtually all cases, you should respect and follow the current Magisterium.

The intellectual life of the Faith has been abandoned by many members of the hierarchy and the clergy, and as Pope John Paul told a group of American bishops visiting the Vatican, during one of their ad limina visits, …“Some of the laity may - may - escape Hell out of ignorance, but the bishops who allowed that ignorance to flourish will not.” POPE JOHN PAUL (Catholic Citizens.org 2017)

 

[Dovekin]

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

This does not contradict any previous teaching of the Church. It is an affirmation of the sovereignty of God. Anyone who says that something exists that is not allowed by God is denying the fundamental identity of God as the creator of all things visible and invisible.

Statements need to be properly understood, something which can only be done definitively by the Magisterium. In the context of a discussion with a Muslim leader, a statement like this builds on our common trust in God. The statements quoted by @Uriel1 do not contradict this statement in any way. Just as the Abu Dhabi must be understood as a joint Catholic Islam statement, those quotes need to be considered in context, eg the Council of Florence in 1441 was working toward a reconciliation with the Orthodox. Any interpretation that would undercut that project is not acceptable today, and certainly would not have been acceptable then.

 

[Genesis315]

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).

Not sure where this idea of only two originated. It makes no logical sense. It would mean there was only one at the time of the First Vatican Council and none before 1864, despite being defended by many saints before then.

At the First Vatican Council, when some bishops wanted to condition papal infallibility on the Pope following some procedure or using some verbal formula, the relator for the Commissio de fide (charged with providing official doctrinal explanations of Council documents to the Council Fathers) said this was impossible, because there were already so many instances with various procedures or even none at all:

But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?

The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop ... - Vinzenz Gasser - Google Books

“Thousands and thousands” might be a bit hyperbolic, but the point remains–it has been more than two. I assume where a document contains a long list of definitively judged propositions, each one is considered a single judgment (e.g. e.g. Coelestis Pastor of Bl. Innocent XI, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus of St. Pius V, Unigenitus of Clement VI, etc.). Also included would be definitive judgments the Pope makes in his own name in the context of a partial or even ecumenical synod.

In fact, the First Vatican Council itself notes the variety of ways such definitions have come about (this statement makes zero sense if there was only one example at the time):

The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

I think some imagine papal infallibility as the Pope autocratically defining doctrine. Rather, as the Council noted, it is often a result of a synod or even general Council when the Pope at then end issues the decisions in his own name. Even in the two famous Marian examples, the Pope first received the opinions of all the bishops of the world and their overwhelming agreement.

 

[Genesis315]

As for the OPs question, novelty never trumps Tradition. In that sense, the teachings of the past take precedence. On the other hand, it belong to the living Magisterium–ie the Pope and the bishops alive right now–to interpret the deposit of faith. In cases of doubt or controversy, it provides the authoritative judgment or interpretation. Then, it is not so much a matter of superseding prior teaching, but properly interpreting it.

A good read on this in general is St. Vincent de Lerin’s 5th century Commonitory:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

Paradoxically, these kinds of issues can be evidence of why Catholicism is true. Cardinal Manning, a 19th century English bishop, was a convert from Anglicanism who encountered this same issues of apparent doctrinal conflicts. In his book “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Spirit” he notes how doctrinal questions can be complex and nuanced, especially when interwoven with history, including changes in vocabulary and culture over time, leading to apparent contradictions and other anomalies. Different people today can look back at the past and come to different conclusions just like we can look at Scripture and see apparent contradictions and different interpretations.

The only way these issues could ever be resolved is if we could rely on the continuity of the Church herself as guarantor of the faith, since it is the same Church in each era.

As such, Manning stated that “No critic except the living and lineal judge and discerner of truth, the only Church of God, can solve these inequalities and anomalies in the history of doctrine. To the Church the facts of antiquity are transparent in the light of its perpetual consciousness of the original revelation.” He was finally content that since it is the same Church in all times, “The enunciation of the faith by the living Church of this hour, is the maximum of evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the fact and the contents of the original revelation.”

 

[stpurl]

Actually yes it is.
Ever seen where something gets decided ‘quickly’ and then turns out to be wrong?

Coffee. Supposed to be terrible for you. Now it’s good.
Eggs, terrible. Now fine.

Kids sleeping on their tummies would get SIDS. Then it was sleeping on their backs that would cause it. Then sleeping on their sides.

You had people frantic to do ‘what the experts said’ and then the experts changed their minds.

Or to go to an even better example: Take antibiotics. Penicillin, etc. Great stuff. Cured all kinds of things. Got to be prescribed almost like candy. Then. . .oops we start to develop strains of diseases that are resistant to antibiotics.

Now if people had moved more responsibly; making sure yes indeed to deal with the serious problems that penicillin helped, but taking more care not to go too far, too fast, etc., that might not have happened.

Or consider the opioid crisis. We moved so fast to treat chronic pain with opioids and look what happened.

So tell me, is moving slowly then necessarily a bad thing?

 

[pnewton]

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.

The answer to your question lies in these two points. Who is it that has the authority to say that the two do not go together. Contrast is okay, but contradiction is not. Modern teaching does not trump the past, but it is authoritative, and that is always the better question. If we do not believe in the authority of the Church, then the whole discussion, and faith, becomes moot.

If the Church has not grown in its understanding, then Jesus lied when he said the Holy Spirit would lead us into Truth. He did not say he would lead us into Truth until 325 AD, or 1441, or any other time period that some traditionalists consider the pinnacle of truth. That pinnacle is still in the future.

 

[ioannes_pius]

I would challenge the assertion that the church would or could contradict its teaching. One official teaching of the Church never “overrules” another; catholics accept all of it.

 

[ontheway1]

ontheway1:

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

This does not contradict any previous teaching of the Church.

I am (clearly) not a theologian, but it seems to me that if God willed a diversity of religions, why would He then sacrifice His own Son (himself in the trinitarian sense) to establish Christianity. And why would He then will Islam to emerge 600 years later to contradict the same Christianity?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

There’s nothing really wrong with it.

 

[Dovekin]

if God willed a diversity of religions, why would He then sacrifice His own Son (himself in the trinitarian sense) to establish Christianity. And why would He then will Islam to emerge 600 years later to contradict the same Christianity?

I do not understand these questions.

If God willed only what is good, why would He sacrifice His own Son? Is that your question? If not, why not?