Does Church Teaching Change

[Rau]

Does church teaching change at all because of changing times, or for the most part does it stay the same?

Questions like this suffer from varying interpretations of the words - eg. the word “change”. Expressions of teaching change. Emphasis changes. Depth of understanding change. Focus and context may change. Completeness may increase (now saying something not previously expressed ).

So it becomes a bit of a word game. Sure - teaching “changes”. But teaching never leads the faithful away from God.

 

[Randolph]

I am enjoying reading this thread very much, and am learning a lot about the history of slavery and the Church’s position on it. Thank you for your time and (name removed by moderator)ut. Please continue to stay on points, and to be civil and respectful to others. God bless.

 

[Abu]

The understanding of the meaning of a Motu Proprio – nothing like a doctrine.

therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
“**MOTU PROPRIO. **Words used in rescripts drawn up and issued by a pope on his own initiative, and not conditioned by any petitionary requests. The documents are always signed personally by a pope.
“Something done on one’s own initiative or by one’s own will. Said especially of certain papal documents written on the Pope’s own authority, often to meet a special and urgent need in the Church.”

“**RESCRIPTS. **The written replies of a pope to questions, petitions, or reports generally made through curial channels. Lesser decisions are made through this form of papal document. Rescripts for dispensations may be given directly or the document may empower a bishop to grant or deny it. (Etym. Latin rescriptum, written reply of the emperor.)”

Thus, as Rodney Stark, who is not a Catholic, agrees: “Slavery ended in medieval Europe only because the Church extended its sacraments to all slaves and then managed to impose a ban on the enslavement of Christians (and of Jews). Within the context of mediaeval Europe, that prohibition was effectively a rule of universal prohibition.” [The *Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 28].

Churchman25 and Randolph
The key is to understand that real doctrine may develop, contradiction is not involved.

Thus the understanding of the meaning of a Motu Proprio is nothing like a doctrine.

The word “define” or “definition” is not used in an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment for the whole Church, that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false. The words *ex cathedra *are never included.

 

[Gorgias]

You seem to be shrugging off the fact that the Pope wrote:
Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis
We declare that it is necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff

No, I’m shrugging off your assertions that it should be understood as a soundbite devoid of context. He’s talking to Philip here, who is asserting that he himself is not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In other words, you’re taking “every human creature” in a horizontal sense: Italians, French, Africans, Asians, Americans. I’m asserting that (in context), he’s talking in a vertical sense: not only peasants, priests, and nobles, but every human creature – including kings, too.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

No, I’m shrugging off your assertions that it should be understood as a soundbite devoid of context. He’s talking to Philip here, who is asserting that he himself is not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In other words, you’re taking “every human creature” in a horizontal sense: Italians, French, Africans, Asians, Americans. I’m asserting that (in context), he’s talking in a vertical sense: not only peasants, priests, and nobles, but every human creature – including kings, too.

I already went into detail as to why “every human creature” in US means exactly that. There is no way to read Unam Sanctam objectively and come to the conclusion that Boniface VIII was limiting the scope of US to the controversy with Phillip the Fair. Boniface VIII explicitly addresses “the Greeks” in the body of the Bull. I’ve done extensive reading on US and no reputable scholar, including no Roman Catholic one, takes the view that the dogmatic statement at the end of US is directed only at Phillip the Fair or other secular rulers in a similar situation.

The structure of US is a well-ordered syllogism which runs as follows:

1. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus est (major premise, a well-established principle by that point).
2. Membership in the true Church requires subjection to the Roman Pontiff (minor premise)
3. Therefore, subjection to the Roman Pontiff is necessary to salvation (conclusion).

 

[Tomdstone]

No, I’m shrugging off your assertions

Your icon indicates a shrug.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

No, I’m shrugging off your assertions that it should be understood as a soundbite devoid of context. He’s talking to Philip here, who is asserting that he himself is not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In other words, you’re taking “every human creature” in a horizontal sense: Italians, French, Africans, Asians, Americans. I’m asserting that (in context), he’s talking in a vertical sense: not only peasants, priests, and nobles, but every human creature – including kings, too.

From the 5th Lateran Council, 1516:

It is necessary for the salvation of souls that all Christian believers be subject to the pope at Rome. The Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers testify to this, as does the bull of Pope Boniface VIII of blessed memory, which begins with the words “Unam Sanctam.” Therefore, with the approval of the holy council now in session, we renew and consider this very same bull to be valid. All this is done for the salvation of believing souls, for the strengthening of the supreme authority of the pope at Rome and of the Holy See, and for the unity and power of the church which has been entrusted to him”.

 

[Exsultet]

1. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus est (major premise, a well-established principle by that point).
2. Membership in the true Church requires [WILLFUL] subjection to the Roman Pontiff (minor premise)
3. Therefore,** [WILLFUL**] subjection to the Roman Pontiff is necessary to salvation (conclusion).**

I have inserted the bolded word, of course, because it is something which I believe that you assume here, but which you have not made clear.

With the insertion of this word, we can see quite clearly that Boniface VIII could have not have possibly intended to use this syllogism in the way that you are.

Why not? It would have Boniface VIII believing that infants can be outside the Church, since they cannot will to have subjection to the Pope. This is ridiculous: he certainly would have held that infants can be baptized, and that they therefore are members of the Church.

We can see, therefore, that Boniface intended IMPLICIT submission to the Roman Pontiff as being necessary for salvation, and it is the nature of such an implicit submission which has been subject to doctrinal development.

Development. Not contradiction.

Please see Fr. Harrison’s excellent treatment of this here: rtforum.org/lt/lt150.html

 

[Gorgias]

I already went into detail as to why “every human creature” in US means exactly that.

Yes, you have. So, please let me address your particular objections…

1. Boniface was writing to the whole world.

Yes, he was… but only in the context of Philip’s errors. A leader may address the whole world regarding a particular controversy in part of the world, can he not? The controversy that Boniface was addressing the whole world about was Philip’s errors with respect to his personal authority vis-a-vis Boniface’s…

1. It was Phillip the Fair’s attempt to tax clergy, but the statement itself, and actually the whole Bull itself, extends much more broadly than that particular controversy.

Actually, it wasn’t an issue of ‘taxation’, but an issue of jurisdiction over Christian clerics.

Just because that controversy was the occasion for the Bull does no mean the Bull has no meaning beyond it.

Fair enough. However, the presumption that the bull applies to any other arbitrary situation is likewise unreasonable.

1. Actually he specifically mentions “the Greeks”.

Yes! He does! Specifically, he says: “Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’”

So, yes… in this context, Boniface asserts that the pope is the shepherd of Christendom. Is this, in particular, your beef here?

1. The context of the Bull makes it clear that Boniface is talking about anyone, Phillip the Fair, Greeks, etc. who refuse to be “subject” to him.

Is there a particular citation that you would like to quote, in support of this claim?

There is no way to read Unam Sanctam objectively and come to the conclusion that Boniface VIII was limiting the scope of US to the controversy with Phillip the Fair.

Fair enough. But, the assertion I was addressing was that it was an assertion outside of the body of Christians. Do you refute that assertion?

Boniface VIII explicitly addresses “the Greeks” in the body of the Bull. I’ve done extensive reading on US and no reputable scholar, including no Roman Catholic one, takes the view that the dogmatic statement at the end of US is directed only at Phillip the Fair or other secular rulers in a similar situation.

Are those “other secular rulers in a similar situation” non-Christians?

 

[Gorgias]

Your icon indicates a shrug.

And that’s in contradiction with my statement that “No, I’m shrugging off your assertions”… how?

 

[Gorgias]

From the 5th Lateran Council, 1516:

It is necessary for the salvation of souls that all Christian believers be subject to the pope at Rome. The Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers testify to this, as does the bull of Pope Boniface VIII of blessed memory, which begins with the words “Unam Sanctam.” Therefore, with the approval of the holy council now in session, we renew and consider this very same bull to be valid. All this is done for the salvation of believing souls, for the strengthening of the supreme authority of the pope at Rome and of the Holy See, and for the unity and power of the church which has been entrusted to him”.

To whom is 5th Lateran speaking, in 1516?

 

[Abu]

The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).

“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors” (Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.).
[My bold].

Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council of AD 1215, Unam Sanctam, the Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII, 1302, and Pope Eugene IV’s Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, all refer to those who have rejected the true gospel, Pope Eugene IV makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc… so this classifies them like the Arians, Monophysites, Ebionites, who heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have not heard the gospel. The ones that these decrees are considering are those that have heard the message. If they had heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church, they can not be saved. Notice that in this decree, just like the first two mentioned, the decree does not say, “Well, if those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved.” This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches now.

There has been a legitimate development of doctrine that is in no way contradictory to what was stated in these decrees.

From the Catechism of St. Pius X on the Ninth Article of the Creed:
“29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.”