Does The Church Change Its Teachings Overtime?

[Catholic4Jesus]

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.

I found those quotes from old books that I have.

 

[Brigid34]

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 wholeheartedly agree with this estimation of RCIA programs! They are all too often much too weak to do anything other than give some friends in the Church for the non-catechumens. Mine was one such as this and though well-meant, catered to the catechumens and not to more advanced christians (let alone current catholics). I’ve never seen one that didn’t teach practically exclusively to the catechumens on this coast (I’ve been a RCIA sponsor in a number of them).

Sometimes a church will have a class teaching current adult catholics. In one way or other this has been true of some of the churches I’ve attended. I’d call the parish office to see if one is available in your church, if not, then I would try a different church about the class.

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

@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.

I went to an independent parish growing up and occasionally we went to an SSPX mass when my priest wans’t there. My independent priest that I had growing up had a very tight bond with the SSPX, my mother subscribed to an SSPX newspaper, so the SSPX had quite an influence on me. And I wasn’t taught that the pope is a heretic by the SSPX’ers that I came into contact with, maybe I misquoted it, if so my mistake. But I was taught that by the Traditionalists, in general, that I knew, not all of them but many of them. And that was the mindset that I had during that time.

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

I’m still trying to figure out exactly what a “recovering Traditionalist” is!

Edited to fix typo - stinkin’ fingers do not work this early in the morning!

I am no longer a Traditionalist but I didn’t come out of it overnight. It was a slow, steady gradual process and even to this stay I am still, in a way, going through it. Even though I don’t fully adhere to the false notions that I was taught growing up, but I still do question them a lot. I hope that here in a few years, I will be “tradition” free, but sadly I think I will always be in some kind of recovery because I was hit hard with this kind of teaching and it’s extremely hard to break ties with those roots when that’s what you’ve basically known throught a course of your life. That is what I mean by recovering Traditionalist.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Here is a very good article on the teaching of the Church regarding non-Catholics from both an historical and modern perspective:

agapebiblestudy.com/documents/is%20salvation%20possible%20outside%20the%20church%20.htm

I grew up pre-Vatican II. I was NEVER taught Protestants cannot go to heaven. I was taught that it is much more difficult because they don’t have access to the sacraments. And this was in my Baltimore Catechism.

I imagine this transition must be very difficult for you, but am happy you have decided to come into full communion with Rome. God bless you.

 

[otjm]

I found those quotes from old books that I have.

I am not questioning that; it is more a question of who wrote the books, and for what reading audience?

Whether there are books, internet articles, blogs, or groups of Catholics, it is entirely possible to be lead merrily down a path other than the path the Church indicates is the way to truth (and Truth).

 

[CrossofChrist]

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.

Nope, Church teachings don’t change. Vatican II was to better show forth and explain Catholic doctrine, so by definition it wouldn’t and couldn’t change doctrine to accomplish its purpose, even if it could change. But it can’t, so moot point. These traditionalists don’t trust Christ’s words in Matt. 16:18, sadly enough.

Anyway, Feeneyism was condemned before Vatican II, so the traditionalists hold a heresy that they claim was because of VII when it actually was declared before.

Baptism is necessary for salvation but there is the “baptism of desire” and the fact that God is not bound by his sacraments. We are bound by them, but God isn’t.

Stuff with the Orthodox is because of a greater understanding between each side and not just a harsh rebuke of the other side without getting to know their opinion/stance. Either way, they have the Real Presence in their Eucharist, so under extreme circumstances there is no problem receiving their communion.

The suicide thing would be more of a discipline thing.

The Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ. Ratzinger/Benedict once explained (I can’t remember where–read it online once) that the “subsists in” part was used to better explain the doctrine that the Catholic Church is and always will be the one true Church. Protestants and Orthodox are called “separated brethren” because by virtue of their baptism they are incorporated into the Catholic Church, albeit in an imperfect way. However, unlike their predecessors, they were born into their communities and can’t be faulted for their wrong beliefs, so it isn’t correct to call them heretics.

Keep in mind that there is no salvation outside of Christ (i.e you can’t be saved if it’s not because of Christ). Now Christ’s Bride is the Church and the Church is one with Christ. So if there is no salvation outside of Christ, there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. But we can’t put limits on God, since he can truly work in mysterious ways. So he can save and convert someone and by his grace incorporate them into Christ, so also the Catholic Church. Vatican II wasn’t saying that nonCatholics are saved, but that they have the possibility of being saved since we can’t limit God’s saving grace. But then at the same time by being saved by God they do in a sense come into communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[MikeDunphy]

I hope that here in a few years, I will be “tradition” free

I mean no offense, but I hope your ambition shifts from becoming “tradition”-free to becoming rancor-free and pride-free and filled with compassion and the grace of God. The 20 centuries of saints that precede us have a wealth of wisdom to offer, very little of which touches on the controverted issues of your original post.

 

[floresco]

I am no longer a Traditionalist but I didn’t come out of it overnight. It was a slow, steady gradual process and even to this stay I am still, in a way, going through it. Even though I don’t fully adhere to the false notions that I was taught growing up, but I still do question them a lot. I hope that here in a few years, I will be “tradition” free, but sadly I think I will always be in some kind of recovery because I was hit hard with this kind of teaching and it’s extremely hard to break ties with those roots when that’s what you’ve basically known throught a course of your life. That is what I mean by recovering Traditionalist.

It seems that your experience of traditionalists consisted primarily of people who were schismatic and disobedient. I completely understand why you would want to reject this and support you in doing so. However, your way of speaking of tradition and traditionalists is potentially hurtful and offensive to all of us who consider ourselves traditionalists. We are not all schismatic and disobedient. Some of us are just Catholics who turn to the traditions of our faith as a source of strength and help.

Anyhow, it occurred to me that I wrote something elsewhere that might address some of your questions in the OP so I will repost it here:

As Catholics, our starting assumption is that Church teaching is not in error. This is our default position. We have a duty, if we are capable of it, to reconcile apparent contradictions in Church teaching rather than claim that a teaching is in error. These are common explanations to consider:

Quotes out of context.
The meaning of one or more passages has been misrepresented by taking it out of context to create a false illusion of contradiction.

Lack of significant difference.
A difference is not necessarily a contradiction. For example, compare the statements “Heresy and schism are closely related sins.” and “Schism and heresy are closely related sins.” The difference in word order does not mean that these statements contradict each other or that one is in error.

Shift in emphasis.
Different truths may be emphasized, depending on the audience or circumstances. St. Augustine, writing against the errors Pelagians, makes different points than when he is writing against Donatists. These differences are not contradictions.

Contingent vs. timeless truths.
Some Church teaching is contingent on specific situations and should not be understood as a timeless truth. There is nothing wrong with contingent teachings being different from each other when they are dealing with different situations.

Legitimate development of doctrine.
Sometimes new terminology or conceptual frameworks are introduced which assist the Church in her mission of teaching the truth. These changes may produce differences which might be perceived by some as contradictions, but they are not.

Some people seem to think that any difference constitutes a contradiction. I hope the above points show that this is not true. A difference between two Church teachings is not necessarily a contradiction between them. However, at times one needs a fairly strong background in theology and/or history to understand why two teachings are different. People who do not have this background should go to the default position - Church teaching is not in error. They should assume their lack of knowledge is the reason for their perception of a contradiction.

It is theoretically possible for a non-infallible Church teaching to be in error. But very few people know enough to eliminate all the other possible explanations for a difference between two Church teachings and be left with the conclusion that one of them is in error.

 

[frankbeenaround]

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

Then the issue is how to separate dogma from what isn’t dogma. For example, does the Nostra Aetate declaration of Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council (concerning the truths and values of other religions) have the force of dogma? It seems to me that the Nostra Aetate would have been inconceivable during the early centuries of the Church. So there has been growth, change, development, improvement. The fundamentals remain, but interpretation seems to have a life of its own, thank God.

~ Frank

 

[floresco]

Then the issue is how to separate dogma from what isn’t dogma. For example, does the Nostra Aetate declaration of Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council (concerning the truths and values of other religions) have the force of dogma? It seems to me that the Nostra Aetate would have been inconceivable during the early centuries of the Church. So there has been growth, change, development, improvement. The fundamentals remain, but interpretation seems to have a life of its own, thank God.

~ Frank

During the early centuries of the Church it was generally accepted that non-Christian writers had some value and that it was legitimate to recognize this and even to borrow what is good from them. The concept of semina verbi (seeds of the Word) goes back to the Church Fathers and is echoed in V2 in Ad Gentes 11:

In order that they may be able to bear more fruitful witness to Christ, let them be joined to those men by esteem and love; let them acknowledge themselves to be members of the group of men among whom they live; let them share in cultural and social life by the various. undertakings and enterprises of human living; let them be familiar with their national and religious traditions; let them gladly and reverently lay bare the** seeds of the Word **which lie hidden among their fellows.

 

[frankbeenaround]

Floresco writes: “During the early centuries of the Church it was generally accepted that non-Christian writers had some value and that it was legitimate to recognize this and even to borrow what is good from them.”

---

Much was borrowed from philosophers – i.e. Aristotle – but it seems to me that Nostra Aetate is a huge development in Church teaching. It includes a reckoning of old points of view, and fresh understanding and compassion toward Jews and Muslims. And so much more.

~ Frank

 

[otjm]

Then the issue is how to separate dogma from what isn’t dogma. For example, does the Nostra Aetate declaration of Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council (concerning the truths and values of other religions) have the force of dogma? It seems to me that the Nostra Aetate would have been inconceivable during the early centuries of the Church. So there has been growth, change, development, improvement. The fundamentals remain, but interpretation seems to have a life of its own, thank God.

~ Frank

There is an old phrase: “When you are up to your (backside) in alligators, it is hard to remember that your initial project was to drain the swamp.”

Throughout history, the Church has faced major challenges. In the midst of a major challenge, it is difficult to acknowledge where the challenger and the Church are similar; the whole effort is spent in submitting truth against error.

The perception then becomes that the other side, the challenger, is completely in error - note the number of times Protestants will be referred to as heretics in an effort to say “I am right and you are wrong”, with no consideration of where we may be both may be right.
It is seen by some as a denial of any wrong if the right is even mentioned, or as some form of relativism or watering down of the faith.

 

[floresco]

Much was borrowed from philosophers – i.e. Aristotle – but it seems to me that Nostra Aetate is a huge development in Church teaching. It includes a reckoning of old points of view, and fresh understanding and compassion toward Jews and Muslims. And so much more.

~ Frank

While there are new elements in the expression of Church teaching, I think a more in-depth understanding would help many people to understand that it was not any sort of break with previous Church teaching.

Francis Sullivan SJ wrote a book called Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response. I think this book would be useful for the OP or anyone who wants a more historically grounded understanding of this doctrine in particular as well as a better grasp of development of doctrine in general.

 

[frankbeenaround]

While there are new elements in the expression of Church teaching, I think a more in-depth understanding would help many people to understand that it was not any sort of break with previous Church teaching.

Francis Sullivan SJ wrote a book called Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response. I think this book would be useful for the OP or anyone who wants a more historically grounded understanding of this doctrine in particular as well as a better grasp of development of doctrine in general.

Thanks, Floresco, for the tip this book. There are some interesting reader comments at Amazon.

~ Frank

 

[edwest2]

I think there is an unhealthy obsession with the SSPX.

First, the Church has been challenged about a lot of things since the first Churches were established. The Bible gives some examples. The Church then has to explain, in much greater detail, why certain things are true regarding its teachings to further clarify them. Check your Bible, Christ gave the Church the power to “bind and loose,” but none of what was taught then was ever meant to be considered trivial or examined by those not properly trained to examine them. We are told that Jesus did not act according to the customs of the times but as God. I think people forget that Christ is the focus, not the men His Holy Spirit has brought together to lead the Church.

Sadly, some want to sow confusion or deny the narrow path. As if out of thin air, “modern thinking” (as opposed to two weeks ago) has brought some new reason to change something. A lot of things too many, including Catholics, think are right or OK or need to change are 100% against Church teaching.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

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.

I’m a guy.

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

I am not questioning that; it is more a question of who wrote the books, and for what reading audience?

Whether there are books, internet articles, blogs, or groups of Catholics, it is entirely possible to be lead merrily down a path other than the path the Church indicates is the way to truth (and Truth).

It was written by the St. Benedict Center, a psuedo-Traditionalist book publishing company.

 

[frankbeenaround]

Edwest2 writes:

“I think there is an unhealthy obsession with the SSPX.”​

I wonder, without the SSPX rebellion would there ever have been struggle by John Pau Il, then Benedict, to provide us with all these holy Tridentine Masses around the world, and even seminaries (FSSP & Christ the King).

But you’re right about the unhealthy obsession: may be best to ignore them for a while.

~ Frank

 

[otjm]

It was written by the St. Benedict Center, a psuedo-Traditionalist book publishing company.

Ah. Not one I am familiar with.

Your post #23 explained a lot. I suspect that the publishing company was one which favored the background of the church you were raised in.

We all start from the backgrounds we are given as children, and that can be hard to overcome. God bless you on your journey. It does not sound particularly easy. I hope what I have said may be of some help.