That is correct.
And, in fact, if anyone could show where dogma HAD ever changed (just once, just a little bit), he would disprove the whole Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church claims to be the “one true Church established by Jesus Christ.” It can, therefore, never change in its fundamental nature - because then *it would no longer be the one true Church *- it would have changed into something else (something cannot change and yet remain the same as it was).
This is why anti-Catholic apologists will sometimes use this approach to “disprove” the Church. But when you examine their arguments, you will see that they are talking about rules, customs, styles of dress, etc - not the dogmatic teachings of the Church.
So far, the combined efforts of 500 years of anti-Catholic rhetoric has failed to discern one single instance when the Church has changed Her dogmatic teaching. This is also quite a remarkable thing!
This is TRUE!
I would add though that while the actual Dogma of the Church has not changed… the Church’s understanding of how to apply these truths to the current culture, may have changed.
Do not get confused by the related terms “teaching” “doctrine” even the word “encyclical”
These words do NOT mean the same as “Dogma” to the Catholic church. But often times people mistaken an encyclical for a Dogma and show that because 1 Pope said ABC in his encyclical and another Pope, 200 years later, said XYZ on a seemingly related topic…that this proves that actual “dogma” has changed. – This is not true, though.
Not all encyclicals are dogmatic and carry the same weight. Make sure you clarify if the Pope at that time intended the encyclical or “Papal Bull” to be taken dogmatically.
Again, this gets back to the customs, practices, etc. The actual Teaching and Principle remains the same. How they are understood or applied may change without changing the underlining principle.
Example: Usury - the charging of interest. - often times non-Catholics will say that the church’s “teaching” on charging interest has changed and this proves that it changes dogma.
At one point the church taught that charging interest was sinful. You should give your money and simply ask for it to be paid back.
In later centuries… the church taught that interest is OK…just not excessive interest that puts a person in a financial slavery.
For starters… this was not a dogma. And secondly… the same principle applies in both situations. What changed is the customs of the culture, as well as people’s level of wealth.
Without getting into a lengthy history lesson… In earlier times… people didn’t borrow money to buy luxuries…they borrowed to pay for necessities like food, crops, livestock, etc. the ability for a common person to pay back with cash, any debt was severely limited. Charging them even 10% interest MAY have created a situation where the person could NEVER pay off the debt and would get their farm re-possessed. It was also common practice in those days that your children would inherit the debt of their parents. A Landlord could keep several generations in virtual slavery by this inheritance of debt.
In later centuries, with the development of a middle class, many people borrowed to buy luxuries or improve their standing in society (like starting a business which would make them even more money) in those cases… lenders could charge interest since the person was not starving or a subsistence farmer.
But whether or not the Church considered charging interest a sin… the principle remained the same.
The POINT of the rule was to not enslave people financially and make money off of poor people who were struggling to feed their families or who might lose their farm if you charged them interest.
