Does Church Teaching Change

[Gorgias]

I don’t see how it is false or how it is discrediting the Catholic Church by quoting what the Pope has written?

Because you need to quote it in context, and not pick soundbites out and misinterpret them.

Did not Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos write: “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”

Yes, he did. Yet, you need to see it in context:

Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism” may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”

The “you” to whom Gregory is writing – the ‘you’ I’ve bolded - refers to the audience Gregory identifies at the beginning of Mirari vos: “All Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World.” All of the references, then, that I’ve underlined – all of the references to ‘they’ or ‘those’ – are the “people committed to your care”. In other words, Gregory is talking to Catholic clergy about the Catholic people whom they lead.

This isn’t some vague reference that asserts that a person who was born in the deep dark Amazon jungle will be condemned unless he’s a Catholic. Either you’re making that up wholecloth, or you’re believing someone who tried to teach you that; either way, you’re mistaken.

Do Catholics today believe that you will perish forever unless you hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate?

Catholics today believe that Catholics will perish forever unless they continue to hold to the Catholic faith, yes. And, in fact, that’s precisely what Gregory was asserting. So no… there’s no development in doctrine here; Vatican II teaches the same thing.

 

[Gorgias]

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:
“we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”"
Is it still taught today that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff?

I’m out of time this morning, but let me briefly answer your question with a question (which might help you develop a hermeneutic for reading papal documents): to whom is Boniface writing? What was the particular controversy which gave rise to the writing of Unam sanctam? Who is it that Boniface was railing against who was failing to be subject to him? What else is in the context of the entire bull (whose last line is what you’ve quoted, to the exclusion of the entire rest of the bull) that you should quote in context here?

Answer these questions, and you’ll know what Boniface is talking about. Hint: it’s not what you’re implying he’s talking about.

 

[TheDoctor]

That seems to be a change from what Pope Eugene IV taught:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Later, he also said:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
and
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:
“we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”"
Is it still taught today that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff?

Thanks for posting this, for it is another good example of doctrine developing and clarifying.

The doctrine comes right from Jesus in John 14:6-7:
Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him."
So does this doctrine change when Jesus ascends into Heaven (after all, He is no longer here so how can we get to the Father)? No, it develops into getting to the Father by going through Jesus by following His commandments and teachings as taught by the Apostles. But what happens when the Apostles die? The doctrine develops further: Go the Father thru Jesus by following his commandments and teachings through His Church - the Catholic Church. This doctrine actually leads to the more often heard “outside the Church there is no salvation”.

As Gorgias points out, in the way we can’t cherry pick scripture we can’t cherry pick papal documents - if we do, often we find that they don’t mean what we think they mean.

 

[clmowry]

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

I would say teachings develops and expands as opposed to change.

Various disciplines and practice can have whole sale changes, but the underlying teachings on faith an morals never change, they develop and are further explained.

Typically the development is in response to the wide spread acceptance of a particular heretical potions that need to be refuted.

To use a non religious analogy, lets say that the Church had taught that “The Sky is Blue.”

A nice simple “clear” teaching…

Then someone comes along and says…the sky is not blue, its black with white specs your teaching is false…

So the church debates it for 100 years and comes back and says… “The Sky is blue during the day.”

And then someone comes back and says…“look its day time and the sky is not blue, its grey your teaching is wrong”…so then we come back and say… “The Sky is blue during the day when not blocked by clouds…”

But…“its day and there are no clouds and the sky is red”…your teaching is wrong…“The Sky is blue during the day when not blocked by clouds and not affected by the refraction of light on the horizon at sunrise and sunset…” etc. etc.

And then someone comes back and says…see, the Church “changed” its teaching on the color of the sky…they no longer teach that “The Sky is Blue”.

Chuck

 

[Tomdstone]

At the time slavery was an accepted part of the culture, however it was taught that masters should treat their slaves with dignity and kindness, something that no other religion was teaching. As the culture changed, the discipline changed. It was never doctrine to own slaves but it was and is doctrine to treat love all, slave and free, the way Jesus loves us.

Slavery was accepted and the Bible taught that slaves were to obey their masters in everything. Today it is taught that it is immoral to hold slaves. In the past it was not taught that slavery was immoral.

 

[Tomdstone]

I’m out of time this morning, but let me briefly answer your question with a question (which might help you develop a hermeneutic for reading papal documents): to whom is Boniface writing? What was the particular controversy which gave rise to the writing of Unam sanctam? Who is it that Boniface was railing against who was failing to be subject to him?

The bull was promulgated during a dispute between Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair, King of France. In response to the bull, King Philip had the Dominican John of Paris issue a refutation. Pope Boniface then excommunicated the king for refusing to accept the statements in the bull:
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.
Today that is changed and it is taught that people in Israel who are not subject to the Pope can be saved.

 

[Tomdstone]

Secular governments set up penalties and carried our persecutions, sometimes in the name of the Church, however I do not think the Church (e.g. the Magisterium) ever condoned murder.

Capital punishment is not thought to be murder. Luther’s opposition to burning heretics was condemned in the papal bull Exsurge Domine.

 

[Tomdstone]

Nothing has changed

Still unanswered is the question as to why Humbertus and others excommunicated Cerularius for not including the filioque in the creed. If nothing had changed by including the filioque, why did the papal bull of 1054 make such a big deal about it?

 

[Tomdstone]

Torture was allowed during the time of the Inquisition. Today it is taught that torture is immoral.

 

[Abu]

Tomdstone #24
Slavery was accepted and the Bible taught that slaves were to obey their masters in everything. Today it is taught that it is immoral to hold slaves. In the past it was not taught that slavery was immoral.

So wrong again.

In the seventh century, “Clovis II, king of the Franks, married his British slave Bathilda (who) used her position to mount a campaign against the slave trade and to redeem those in slavery.” She was declared a saint by the Church.

How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and the Success of the West
RODNEY STARK
“Through all prior recorded history, slavery was universal — Christianity began in a world where as much as half the population was in bondage. But by the seventh century, Christianity had become the only major world religion to formulate specific theological opposition to slavery, and, by no later than the 11th century, the Church had expelled the dreadful institution from Europe.” [My emphasis].
catholiceducation.org/en/…-the-west.html

U.S. Economist, Stanford University professor, and Hoover Institute Senior Fellow, African Thomas Sowell, in Black Rednecks & White Liberals, in an essay titled The Real History of Slavery, declares:
“Slavery is almost as old as humanity, and as widespread as the globe. The Islamic world was notorious for its slave trade. Slavs were notoriously slaves. In fact the word “slave” comes from slav. Arabs and North Africans enslaved Europeans, Europeans enslaved other Europeans, Africans enslaved other Africans. Everyone enslaved someone. It was all the rage. While slavery was common to all civilizations, as well as to peoples considered uncivilized, only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in its history — Western civilization…”

“The reason? The teaching of the Catholic Church from the beginning came to be believed widely as true.”

“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)." The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 28]. Rodney Stark is not even a Catholic.

 

[Tomdstone]

So wrong again.

In the seventh century, “Clovis II, king of the Franks, married his British slave Bathilda (who) used her position to mount a campaign against the slave trade and to redeem those in slavery.” She was declared a saint by the Church.

How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and the Success of the West
RODNEY STARK
“Through all prior recorded history, slavery was universal — Christianity began in a world where as much as half the population was in bondage. But by the seventh century, Christianity had become the only major world religion to formulate specific theological opposition to slavery, and, by no later than the 11th century, the Church had expelled the dreadful institution from Europe.” [My emphasis].
catholiceducation.org/en/…-the-west.html

U.S. Economist, Stanford University professor, and Hoover Institute Senior Fellow, African Thomas Sowell, in Black Rednecks & White Liberals, in an essay titled The Real History of Slavery, declares:
“Slavery is almost as old as humanity, and as widespread as the globe. The Islamic world was notorious for its slave trade. Slavs were notoriously slaves. In fact the word “slave” comes from slav. Arabs and North Africans enslaved Europeans, Europeans enslaved other Europeans, Africans enslaved other Africans. Everyone enslaved someone. It was all the rage. While slavery was common to all civilizations, as well as to peoples considered uncivilized, only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in its history — Western civilization…”

“The reason? The teaching of the Catholic Church from the beginning came to be believed widely as true.”

“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)." The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 28]. Rodney Stark is not even a Catholic.

That is the seventh century. The teaching then had changed from what it was in the early church. In the early church slaves were told to obey their masters in everything:
Col 3:22: Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything;
But what I read is that
later on, Pope Nicholas V issued the bull Dum Diversas 18 June, 1452 and after that Romanus Pontifex on January 5, 1455
“We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit – by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors”.
As I read it, it looks to me like it requested that pagans and others be placed in perpetual slavery?

 

[Darryl_B]

Is servitude to a Country, servitude to a King, really considered to be slavery these days?

 

[Abu]

Tomdstone #30
But what I read is that later on, Pope Nicholas V issued the bull Dum Diversas 18 June, 1452 and after that Romanus Pontifex on January 5, 1455
As I read it, it looks to me like it requested that pagans and others be placed in perpetual slavery?

We have seen categorically the reality of the Church’s fight against slavery, with emancipated slaves becoming Popes in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and we know that the Muslims have always tried to destroy Christian civilization.

So this analysis is worth noting.
Is Dum Diversas real?
What we need to understand here is the context. This bull was written at a time of severe Muslim persecution of Christendom - Byzantine/Constantinople was under threat of attack and takeover by Muslims. In fact it was written just one year before the Muslims defeated Christian Byzantine (100-200K invaders against a mere 8,000 or so defenders). To give a context let me say that the Muslim invaders looted, pillaged and slaughtered Christians for a number of days before giving the few hiding survivors terms for their subjugation and homage if they surrendered as vassals to Islam.

The call by Pope Nicholas V (who authored this bull) was to rally Christendom to come to the aid of its members and confront Islam (the Saracens and pagan mercenaries they gained by conquering W. African pagan countries) head on. But he failed to get the European Kings to help and that is why Byzantine fell. This bull was directed to the Spanish only and was an authorization to engage the conquering Muslims and make war with them to stop their encroachment and aggression and conversion of Pagan Africa into homage by providing a quota of men of war - mercenaries . It was a time of war and at this time the Church had a definate voice of influence in government secular affairs and had to assert itself to defend innocent lives being slaughtered by the Muslim hordes. The pope uses the language and emotion of the day. Christians were terrorized by what looked like Satan himself waging war against Christendom. So the pope authorized the taking of prisoners of war and their enslavement/incarceration as a life sentence for crimes against Christendom. This is a mercy since the war convention at the time was to kill enemies due to the high cost of maintaining them and guarding or else holding the noble ones (knights/lords) as hostage for payment from their Christian families.

This bull was not a general edict to enslave people willy-nilly. It was no different than giving a life sentence to criminals with hard labor to pay back society as we still do to this very day here in the USA.

Bottom Line - Dum Diversas was a real papal bull but it in no way is a general endorsement of slavery. It is simply an authorization to the Spanish monarchy to engage the aggressor enemy of Christians in a “just war” and to take any survivors as prisoners and incarcerate them for life for their crimes against Christianity. It was all issued at a time when the Church was trying hard to rally Christendom out of its apathy to help defend our eastern Christian brothers from being defeated.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=418725

Nicholas V refers to wars in Romanus Pontifex. Matters of war and imprisonment are prudential teachings, not infallible teachings. [My emphasis].
catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html

Further, on Nicholas V’s “Romanus Pontifex”, 1455, the renowned Fr William Most explains:
“Now the Saracens had been murdering all sorts of persons. Their religion was literally spread by the sword. Their sacred book, the Koran, says (cited from Bernard Palmer, ‘Understanding the Islamic Explosion’, Horizon House, 1980, pp. 36-37): ‘When ye encounter unbelievers, strike off their heads until ye have made a great slaughter among them, and bind them in bonds. . . .’ They also believed that to fight in such a ‘Holy War’ ensures immediate salvation, going to a sex paradise. Islamic people held Spain and Portugal for centuries, and got control of the area at first precisely by killing the ‘infidels’.”
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SLAVERY.HTM

Pope Nicholas V’s apparent endorsement of slavery is easy to reconcile. You were given the answer in September 2013, and again in Can the Catholic Church change moral theology? on Jan 25, '15, post #25, but you seemed, and still seem, quite oblivious to these realities.

The Muslims were persecuting Christians every where they could and enslaving them, or force converting them or executing them for not conforming in an unjust war of conquest and assimilation. They were beyond war criminals and the west was well within its just right to kill them and repel them as a just response. In these times it was the practice to execute wounded soldiers captured or if coming from wealthy families to ransom them back for booty or to enslave them for perpetual work until they perished. Nicholas was authorizing under a just war doctrine a more generally merciful condition of life long imprisonment as slaves rather than just and rightful execution for committing war crimes against the Christian Nation. That’s really merciful considering that these were deserving of execution as this particular enemy was unrelenting and radically opposed to Christianity and sworn to kill Christians at every opportunity. So in this context even taking prisoners and putting them to the punishment of slavery for their crimes is VERY just – especially for the harshness of this period of time. Also, the pope’s letter was not a universal teaching for all places – only a limited area of conflict.

 

[Tomdstone]

So in this context even taking prisoners and putting them to the punishment of slavery for their crimes is VERY just.

Is it taught now that enslavement of people is just?
Further, I don’t see where slavery was condemned in Scripture? Is it true that the early church taught that slaves should obey their earthly masters in everything? Slavery exists today in various places, especially with children, but I don;t think it is taught that these child slaves should have to obey their masters in everything. I think rather that it is taught that slavery is wrong and that these children should be set free?

 

[Efraim]

If proceeds from the Father is the same thing as proceeds from the Father and from the Son, why then did they excommunicate people who adhered to the first?
Papal Bull of 1054:
Humbert, cardinal bishop of the holy Roman Church by the grace of God; Peter, archbishop of Amalfi; and Frederick, deacon and chancellor, to all the children of the catholic Church…But as far as Michael, who is called patriarch through an abuse of the term, and the backers of his foolishness are concerned, innumerable tares of heresies are daily sown in its midst…Like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;…
Therefore, because we did not tolerate this unheard of outrage and injury of the first, holy, and apostolic see and were concerned that the catholic faith would be undermined in many ways, by the authority of the holy and individuated Trinity and the apostolic see, whose embassy we are performing, and of all the orthodox fathers from the seven councils and of the entire catholic Church, we thus subscribe to the following anathema which the most reverend pope has proclaimed upon Michael and his followers unless they should repent.

Michael, neophyte patriarch through abuse of office, who took on the monastic habit out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.

St Ambrose of Milan, On the Holy Spirit;
And this, again, is not a trivial matter that we read that a river goes forth from the throne of God. For you read the words of the Evangelist John to this purport: *& He showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God & of the Lamb. In the midst of the street thereof, & on either side, was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of all nations. *(Revelation 22:1-2)
This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says: If any man thirst, let him come to Me & drink. He that believes in Me, as says the Scripture, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spoke He of the Spirit. (John 7:37-38) Therefore the river is the Spirit.

The Filioque was always taught within the Latin Church. The nicene-constantinopolitan creed was outlined in eastern councils. But it was taught from very early on by the Saints of the western church that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Father & the Son & this was accepted as orthodox by the eastern church fathers, such as St Maximus the Confessor. Because it was understood that there was differences in latin & greek & that ultimately, the Father is the “cause” of the Godhead. & since Revelation 22:1-2 seems to show that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father & the Son - it’s not possible to claim this is a heresy.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Filioque was always taught within the Latin Church.

Did the creed in the west have the filioque before the seventh century?

 

[Gorgias]

The bull was promulgated during a dispute between Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair, King of France. In response to the bull, King Philip had the Dominican John of Paris issue a refutation. Pope Boniface then excommunicated the king for refusing to accept the statements in the bull:
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.

Doing good so far!

Today that is changed and it is taught that people in Israel who are not subject to the Pope can be saved.

Well, that sure changed in a hurry. :sad_yes:

The context of the papal bull was – as you mentioned – a dispute between the pope and King Philip. In that context, the pope taught that Christian kings were subject to the Christian pope.

That hasn’t changed: in the realm of faith and morals, it doesn’t matter who a Catholic is – pauper or prince, he does not ‘outrank’ the pope.

That’s all the bull is saying. And that hasn’t changed, despite your assertions to the contrary.

 

[Darryl_B]

Did the creed in the west have the filioque before the seventh century?

Going from a state of silence to a state of unsilent does not really mean “change”.

Do you have a reference that actually states “and not the Son”.

 

[Tomdstone]

Doing good so far!

Well, that sure changed in a hurry. :sad_yes:

The context of the papal bull was – as you mentioned – a dispute between the pope and King Philip. In that context, the pope taught that Christian kings were subject to the Christian pope.

That hasn’t changed: in the realm of faith and morals, it doesn’t matter who a Catholic is – pauper or prince, he does not ‘outrank’ the pope.

That’s all the bull is saying. And that hasn’t changed, despite your assertions to the contrary.

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

 

[Tomdstone]

Going from a state of silence to a state of unsilent does not really mean “change”.

Do you have a reference that actually states “and not the Son”.

If it is no change and if it means the same thing and is irrelevant as to whether or not the creed contains the filioque, why was its omission mentioned in the papal bull as a reason to inflict anathema maranatha with the devil on Michael Cerularius?