Does The Church Change Its Teachings Overtime?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic4Jesus

Guest
I am a recovering Traditionalist and was taught growing up that the Church over the past 50 years has changed its teachings and that only a very small remnant (Traditionalist movements not in communion with Rome ie SSPX, etc) are the true Church while the mainstream Church including the Magisterium has fallen away. I was taught that before Vatican II, the Church taught that only Catholics will go to Heaven and that if you weren’t baptized into the Church, you were going to Hell and that the Church changed the dogma and now says that anyone in any religion can be saved.

I was taught that the Church taught that water baptism was necessary for salvation and now teaches that unbaptized people can go to Heaven. I was also taught that the Church taught that you cannot celebrate the Eucharist with other Churches but the Church now occasionally has inter-faith masses with the Orthodox, etc. I have actually seen masses where Catholic and Orthodox priests get together to celebrate the Eucharist. I was taught that we were not to offer masses for anyone deceased who was not Catholic, but Ive heard of many cases where priests have offered masses for non-Catholic deceased.

I was taught that if a Catholic commits suicide, he/she cannot have a mass said for them, but I have now seen many Catholics who have committed suicide have funeral masses said for them, for the repose of their souls. I was also taught that the Catholic Church was the true Church of Christ. But Vatican II says that the true Church of Christ “subsists within” the Catholic Church. I also was taught that other Christians (Protestants, Orthodox, etc) were fools, reprobates, heretics, heathens, etc who were on their way to Hell. But Vaitcan II says that Protestants are now “ecclesial communities” or “seperated brethren” which seems like a totally different doctrine to me.

Ex Cathedra: “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is no salvation.” Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)

Ex Cathedra: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of EVERY human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull ‘Unum Sanctum’ 1302)

Ex Cathedra: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that none of those existing outside of the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can have a share in life eternal. But that they will go to eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels unless beforedeath they are joined with Her. And that so is important that is this ecclesiastical body and only those in union with her can profit from the sacraments of salvation and they alone can receive recompense from their fasts, almsgiving and other works of Christian piety and the works of a Christian soldier. No one, no matter how great his almsgiving his, NOR EVEN IF HE POURS HIS BLOOD OUT FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST can be saved unless he belongs to the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull ‘Cantate Domino’ 1441)

I’m not pointing out saying this is right, that is wrong. I am just a little confused and am hoping to have some light shed on this issue.
 
I suggest you enroll in the RCIA class in your nearest Catholic church. The RCIA is an adult education class designed to teach new converts the faith, as well as teach old catholics - who may not understand the faith. Just inform the parish that you are curious and want an adult class to learn.

But to answer your question the Catholic Church cannot change its DOGMA and many of the examples you offer are truly in error and wrong teachings.

Go to RCIA
 
The bizarre claims of schismatics don’t need to be dignified by individual responses.

There have always been schismatic movements. They usually make up all sorts of slanders against the Catholic Church in order to justify their schisms. Don’t fall for this nonsense. The Catholic Church is the same today as it was during Apostolic times and the schismatics today are just as false today as the schismatics then were.
 
Blessed John Henry Newman wrote an essay on the subject of the development of Christian doctrine. You should check that out and see if it yields any answers to your questions.

God bless,
Matt
 
there is one thing you must remember with the Catholic Church it isn’t some rock that from itts inception has always taught the exact same thing and never changes its view on teachings. Its wrong to think this way and is contrary to the truth of Catholicism. But how do you explain this, why does it appear that the Catholic Church goes against what they have taught in the past. I don’t have the time to go through each of the issues you talk about but I will address your post in general.

We as catholics must obey the current magisterium not a past magisterium or a future magisterium. Even doctors of the Church don’t believe truths of the current Catholic Church. If St. Thomas Aquinas taught what he taught in the 13th century today he would be a heritic now I suspect he would listen to the Church and believe what they taught. But STA didn’t believe in the immaculate conception which was declared by a Pope infallibly I think, but because the Church at the time didn’t develop the understanding of the immaculate conception so STA wasn’t a heretic and rather a doctor of the Church. If you as a Catholic believed everything STA taught and didn’t listen to the current Church you wouldn’t’ be following the entire truth of Christ.

the same applies to everything today, if you believe that the Church is wrong in saying people outside of the Church can be saved you aren’t obeying the current magisterium. If you believe that we should go back to the old latin mass and no more english mass you are not obeying the current magisterium.

its simple we as Catholics are called to obey the current magisterium and not past or hoped for magisterium

the simple fact is that the Catholic Church develops its is a living organism that grows in knowledge. The Church of the apostles is like a child while today’s Church is like a 55 year old genius or something. the understanding of the child is alot less then the understanding of the 55 year old. the church isn’t the church of 51 or 57 it is the Church of 55 (its an analogy don’t take anything of the ages) LIsten to the Church of 55 not 51 or 57
 
Church teaching doesn’t necessarily change over time but it does develop to greater understandings as the Church’s understanding of scripture, tradition and history deepens.

RCIA is a great idea, especially because it provides face to face discussion but if you want some immediate answers, you can also get yourself a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which addresses a lot of the statements you relayed.

There’s an online version on the Vatican website:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

or if it’s too wordy you can get the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is a simpler version in question and answer format

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Regards
 
I think the best way to answer your question is like others have said - the teachings don’t change, but our understanding and interpretations might.

We certainly have capital letter “T” Traditions and lower case “t” traditions. The TRADITIONS are that which are essential to the Faith. These come form the Apostles, hands on what the Apostles rec’d from Jesus, or hands on what the Apostles learned thru inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

little “t” traditions support the faith but are not essential to it. These come form the local churches over time in areas of theology, discipline, liturgy and devotion. They are forms or customs that are adapted to different times and places or ways of expressing the great Tradition that can be modified
 
Catholic4Jesus said:
I am a recovering Traditionalist and was taught growing up that the Church over the past 50 years has changed its teachings and that only a very small remnant (Traditionalist movements not in communion with Rome ie SSPX, etc) are the true Church while the mainstream Church including the Magisterium has fallen away. I was taught that before Vatican II, the Church taught that only Catholics will go to Heaven and that if you weren’t baptized into the Church, you were going to Hell and that the Church changed the dogma and now says that anyone in any religion can be saved.

I was taught that the Church taught that water baptism was necessary for salvation and now teaches that unbaptized people can go to Heaven. I was also taught that the Church taught that you cannot celebrate the Eucharist with other Churches but the Church now occasionally has inter-faith masses with the Orthodox, etc. I have actually seen masses where Catholic and Orthodox priests get together to celebrate the Eucharist. I was taught that we were not to offer masses for anyone deceased who was not Catholic, but Ive heard of many cases where priests have offered masses for non-Catholic deceased.

I was taught that if a Catholic commits suicide, he/she cannot have a mass said for them, but I have now seen many Catholics who have committed suicide have funeral masses said for them, for the repose of their souls. I was also taught that the Catholic Church was the true Church of Christ. But Vatican II says that the true Church of Christ “subsists within” the Catholic Church. I also was taught that other Christians (Protestants, Orthodox, etc) were fools, reprobates, heretics, heathens, etc who were on their way to Hell. But Vaitcan II says that Protestants are now “ecclesial communities” or “seperated brethren” which seems like a totally different doctrine to me.

Ex Cathedra: “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is no salvation.” Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)

Ex Cathedra: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of EVERY human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull ‘Unum Sanctum’ 1302)

Ex Cathedra: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that none of those existing outside of the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can have a share in life eternal. But that they will go to eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels unless beforedeath they are joined with Her. And that so is important that is this ecclesiastical body and only those in union with her can profit from the sacraments of salvation and they alone can receive recompense from their fasts, almsgiving and other works of Christian piety and the works of a Christian soldier. No one, no matter how great his almsgiving his, NOR EVEN IF HE POURS HIS BLOOD OUT FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST can be saved unless he belongs to the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull ‘Cantate Domino’ 1441)

I’m not pointing out saying this is right, that is wrong. I am just a little confused and am hoping to have some light shed on this issue.
Click to expand...
The SSPX doesn’t even say that it is the true Church. The Church has always taught that if a person is outside the visible church through no fault of his own he could be saved, there are several pre-VII encyclicals teaching this. The Church taught well before VII that baptism of blood and of desire could save an unbaptized person. Decisions on celebrating masses with the Orthodox is a disciplinary, rather than doctrinal matter, although limited inter-Church prayer services were permitted before the Council. Even before the Council, mass could be said for a non-Catholic. The decision on saying mass for people who kill themselves was a disciplinary matter. “subsists in” and “is” are two ways of saying the same thing. Statements regarding the degree to which Protestants are objectively connected to the Church and statements regarding invincible ignorance should not be conflated. Imperfect communion and the like is not salvific, invincible ignorance is a seperated doctrine from these ecclesiological teachings. The idea that the present and past magesteriums are seperate is a heresy proposed by extreme liberals, and is only a caricature of what the Church actually teaches.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
The bizarre claims of schismatics don’t need to be dignified by individual responses.

There have always been schismatic movements. They usually make up all sorts of slanders against the Catholic Church in order to justify their schisms. Don’t fall for this nonsense. The Catholic Church is the same today as it was during Apostolic times and the schismatics today are just as false today as the schismatics then were.
Click to expand...
To paraphrase what PaulfromIowa just said:
“it’s my way or the highway.”

I’m afraid such an attitude is not helpful. It is an attitude that is no different from the hardcore schismatic who says, “I’m right, they’re wrong. (so let’s just go our separate ways, see you from heaven.)”

Anyway, just thought I’d point that out.
 
Suslar said:
I think the best way to answer your question is like others have said - the teachings don’t change, but our understanding and interpretations might.

We certainly have capital letter “T” Traditions and lower case “t” traditions. The TRADITIONS are that which are essential to the Faith. These come form the Apostles, hands on what the Apostles rec’d from Jesus, or hands on what the Apostles learned thru inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

little “t” traditions support the faith but are not essential to it. These come form the local churches over time in areas of theology, discipline, liturgy and devotion. They are forms or customs that are adapted to different times and places or ways of expressing the great Tradition that can be modified
Click to expand...
I was thinking along the same lines. Liked Catholictiger’s response, too.

Thanks.
 
Catholic4Jesus said:
I am a recovering Traditionalist and was taught growing up that the Church over the past 50 years has changed its teachings and that only a very small remnant (Traditionalist movements not in communion with Rome ie SSPX, etc) are the true Church while the mainstream Church including the Magisterium has fallen away.
Click to expand...
I am going to guess that what you were taught, you were taught as a child. Children are (or should be) taught the essentials. They are not taught theology, they are taught a series of precepts and truths, and the fullness of those truths are not always explained; in large part because they are children.

It is like teaching math; you teach basic addition, subtraction, division and multiplication; most are not taught calculus and precious few get into the math of quantum physics. And those that are taught higher levels of math are taught later, as they are older.

As the Church goes forward in time, it meditates on Scripture and Tradition, and as time passes, the basic doctrines are nuanced; that is, the Church looks further and further into the details of doctrine.

It is a basic truth of the Church, always has been and still is, that the Church cannot change doctrine. God, through Christ, gave us doctrine; it is not something we “thunk up” as it were. And God, like any good parent, doesnt give every last detail all at once. But the fact that doctrine is found to have nore details is not a chnage in the doctrine; it is a better and more complete explanation. The note above about Cardinal Newman is on point.

The internet is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing because it can be a source of finding truth; it is also subject to containing falsehood. You would be far better off reading the Catholc Catechism given us by John Paul 2 than digging around trying to find answers when you may not know the validity of the source.

Without getting into what someone who identifies themself as a member of the SSPX teaches about Vatican 2, or the Church, or the current and recently past Popes, let’s just say that there is a reason they are still in negotiations with Rome. If those negotiations don’t come to an understanding acceptable to Rome, they will not have standing in the Church. They are a good source to avoid until you have a thorough understanding of what the Church teaches. ajnd that has nothing to do with attending Mass in the Extrodinary Form, other than the Church advises not attending an SSPX chapel to do so.

I am going to guess here that most of your education in Church teachings pretty much ended after you were confirmed. In that , you are like most Catholics, who have often not much more than they were taught by the time they were in high school. It is understandable to meet, get to know, and be “taught” by someone who is not necessarily in line with Church teachings. The above thread that suggests RCIA might be good, or getting together with an adult group at your parish or a nearby one if they have classes in Church teachings; often you can find a deacon who can be very helpful, if you are not comfortable going to a priest.

Understand, much if not most of the writings of the Popes are in theology, written to bishops and theologians; and the bishops are responsible for teaching their priests, and ulitamtely their people in the diocese. Prior to the internet, most people did not have ready access to those documents; and part of the problem is that people not well trained in theology (or at times, having any training) get hold of several of them and start comparing parts, as if this was much like a newspaper article or a magazine article. The short of it is that they end up confused, because they are not trained. It is similar to getting hold of some post doctoral studies of something; the average person is not going to have a clue as to what is being said in them.

That is not to say you must not read them; but you need someone trained in theology as a guide.
 
There’s maybe five things at the most that the Church has ever changed and that’s the way of celebrating Mass, its relations with the Orthodox church, the way they do the Conclave, Holy Days of Obligation and iirc the way people are canonized.
 
No the Catholic Church does not change her teachings, and has not. A couple of the things you mentioned for example, no burial for suicide victims and no masses with orthodox, are part of discipline, not dogma. Disciplines come and go as they are needed. Funerals were denied in the past to suicide victims to emphasize the gravity of the situation. Now the emphasis is on God’s mercy. Both are true, and both need to be emphasized. It’s a pastoral question really though, not doctrinal. Same thing with the Masses with Orthodox.

Remember, at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, how the council said that Christians were not allowed to eat meat sacrificed to idols or blood? We don’t follow that discipline anymore, because it was a discipline, not doctrine, and it served its purpose. But is is no longer necessary. This is part of the Church’s authority to bind and loose. The Church is our Mother, she gives us these disciplines to help us grow spiritually, if she determines that a particular discipline isn’t helping any longer, then she takes it away or replaces it with another more helpful one:thumbsup:

Now as for the Church’s teaching on no salvation outside the Church, I think you might be surprised that actually* IS *still a teaching of the Church! The most recent Catechism teaches it, as well as Vatican 2!! 🙂 The only thing is the doctrine has been more developed. What all those former councils said were and still are true, you can’t get to heaven apart from Jesus and His Church and if you know that,and reject it you can’t be saved. But none of those statements dealt with the concept of invincible ignorance. It simply spoke the truth, but not necessarily every single thing there was to say about a subject. That’s what has been developed, but not the essential truth.

One thing we need to remember is that Jesus promised he would guide his Church into all truth, and the gates of hell would not prevail. If the magisterium really was teaching heresy, that would essentially make Jesus a liar, because the gates of hell HAVE prevailed if that really happened. Don’t think we want to say that,👍

Hope that helped a little!
 
Several people have suggested RCIA, but I’m just a little hesitant about this. The quality of RCIA programs varies from parish to parish, and if you end up in one of the weaker ones, you could end up more confused. I still believe that people coming into the Church should enroll in RCIA becuase they will be part of a “class” of new Catholics, and there is a lot of value in having several friends in the Church.

But I’m not sure it’s the best place for the OP to get answers to questions.

I’m also thinking that a priest or teacher might be a little reluctant to have the OP using the RCIA time to ask the type of questions in the OP. These questions could be upsetting for catechumens, and could cause them to develop doubts and fears, and perhaps even back out of their committment to become Catholic.

Again, it depends on the RCIA program and the parish. Many are excellent. But I’m not sure it’s the best platform for the OP to learn.

Since the OP is already a Catholic, I would like to suggest that the OP contact the diocese and inquire about in-depth ministry classes or programs. We have such a program in our diocese. It is a daunting class that takes two long years of hard work and study to complete, and involves a lot of study of theology and Catholic doctrine/dogma. The people who make it through the class and graduate are ready for various teaching ministries within the Church.

I think the OP would enjoy such an in-depth class with sharp teachers who would be able to answer their hard questions, and I think that the diocese would love to have the OP as a student because the OP’s upbringing and past experiences, combined with proper training, will make the OP a great teacher/apologist, with a specialty in reaching out to “recovering traditionalists” (a term that the OP used).
 
I’m still trying to figure out exactly what a “recovering Traditionalist” is! :whistle:

Edited to fix typo - stinkin’ fingers do not work this early in the morning! 🙂
 
Cat said:
Since the OP is already a Catholic, I would like to suggest that the OP contact the diocese and inquire about in-depth ministry classes or programs. We have such a program in our diocese. It is a daunting class that takes two long years of hard work and study to complete, and involves a lot of study of theology and Catholic doctrine/dogma. The people who make it through the class and graduate are ready for various teaching ministries within the Church.

I think the OP would enjoy such an in-depth class with sharp teachers who would be able to answer their hard questions, and I think that the diocese would love to have the OP as a student because the OP’s upbringing and past experiences, combined with proper training, will make the OP a great teacher/apologist, with a specialty in reaching out to “recovering traditionalists” (a term that the OP used).
Click to expand...
Hi Cat,
Arch Chicago does offer Lay Ministry formation programs through the Institute for Lay Formation on the Seminary grounds. The 2 year program for Lay Ministry leaders called “Called and Gifted” and a more intense 3-year program for Lay Ecclesial Ministers that is done in conjunction with earning a Master’s (used to be called Together in God’s Service). But these programs are for those who feel a call to serve the Church, nor just for education about the Faith. Certainly, in depth education is an expectation, but the programs exist to serve a different purpose – to create capable Lay leaders. I’d recommend them only if the OP (or any other person) is looking to lead a ministry within the Church. If a person wants to teach catechism, there is actually a separate program for that too - “The Four Pillars” training which will lead to Certified Catechist standing. All of these program come with fees, a time commitment, and a commitment to discernment.

I might suggest the OP find a good Spiritual Director and ask that person to help locate a gifted teacher of the Faith. They do exist! And several orders of priests, brothers and nuns are known for their excellent teaching.
 
Cat said:
Several people have suggested RCIA, but I’m just a little hesitant about this. The quality of RCIA programs varies from parish to parish, and if you end up in one of the weaker ones, you could end up more confused. I still believe that people coming into the Church should enroll in RCIA becuase they will be part of a “class” of new Catholics, and there is a lot of value in having several friends in the Church.

But I’m not sure it’s the best place for the OP to get answers to questions.
Click to expand...
I am sure that RCIA is not the place for these questions. The answers require in-depth knowledge which the leader might not have. Also these questions could be too complex for many people who are new to faith.

I second the recommendation for the Cardinal Newman article linked to earlier in this thread. It was the first thing that came to my mind when I read the OP.
 
@Catholic4Jesus

You said in your first thread (Is “Tradition” the Truth?), that you are raised at an independent parish. However, I have seen more than once, that you claim things about the SSPX that are not true, the SSPX does not believe that the magisterium has fallen into heresy. They are disobedient, but they do not claim that the Pope is a heretic.
 
Deborah_Marie said:
I’m still trying to figure out exactly what a “recovering Traditionalist” is! :whistle:

Edited to fix typo - stinkin’ fingers do not work this early in the morning! 🙂
Click to expand...
From what I have seen if her contributions, she belonged to a schismatic sect that claimed to be Traditionalist, and rejected the actual authority of the Holy Father in Rome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top