Has The Religion to Which You Belong CHANGED Throughout its History and What Does This Mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TOmNossor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TOmNossor

Guest
Has The Religion to Which You Belong CHANGED Throughout its History and What Does This Mean?
I have thought about this thread for a while. I am a LDS (a Mormon).
Have we CHANGED our structure, our doctrine, our size, our location(s)? Yes to all that and more.

What does it mean?

I belong to a religion that burst upon the scene of New England in 1830. Our foundational narrative dislodged us from some to a lot of the Christian world in a way similar to the foundational narrative of first century Christianity dislodging it from some to a lot of the Jewish world. Over this less than 200 years we have been trying to figure out (with our purported divine help, but still figuring) what we as a people believe. We are still figuring and thus we are still CHANGING.
Add to this the fact that we as a people believe that God still reveals truth to the MAN who we recognize as a prophet for the entire church. This creates further changes.

Now, there are things in which I have faith even certitude. Believing as I do concerning change this certitude is not some analytic proposition, just faith. I have faith that the church will not up and decide that Christ is no longer central to our teachings. I have faith like this in other doctrines to. But I reserve complete faith only for God.

So, in conclusion, I belong to a church that CHANGES. This CHANGING is baked into our foundation and our continuation. I expect it to continue, but it is clear to me that such changing is not inconsistent with our doctrine or our view of our church.

Charity, TOm
 
Catholic Perspective:

Has the Church changed? It certainly looks different. It looked different the moment the first Gentiles were baptized. Up until then the Church was comprised of only Jewish people who believed in Jesus. Jesus also commanded to preach the Gospel to every nation, so of course more churches (we call them parishes) would come up. So yes, it looks different. Now, does our doctrine change? No; it has not and it will not.

I would not describe Christianity as “dislodging” itself from Judaism. Actually, if memory serves, it was the Jewish world that banned Christians from the Temple. Up to that point, Christians would worship in the Temple and go to Mass.

Finally, a note on faith. We have reason, well, for a reason!😃 As Ven. Fulton Sheen once said, “We are supposed to think. We don’t start with faith.” So we, as Catholics, prescribe to Faith and Reason. 👍
 
People fear 2 things above all else: Change and the Unknown. Obviously they are related in many ways.

However I like to think of change as merely a progression, or evolution of thought, technology, thinking, etc…

When a group refuses to accept ANY change at all, and holds fast onto it’s old ways of thinking despite evidence to the contrary that is where real problems begin.
 
The Catholic Church, which I belong to, does not change in doctrine. What we believe is the deposit of faith left by Jesus Christ to the Apostles. Some of that deposit of faith has been developed further but not CHANGED!

There have been some changes that were not doctrine, such as Mass being celebrated in the vernacular and the priests facing the people during the consecration. While those are changes, it does not change what we believe and did not change what the Mass is. We pray the same prayers said by the early church. We believe the Eucharist is the same as the early church. We believe in the Trinity. We say the same Nicene creed developed in 325 and amended in 381.

The Catholic Church has clear and documented Apostolic succession from Peter to Francis. We have the Church Jesus Christ gave to the people in 33 AD and that has not nor can not change. It’s in the promise of Jesus Christ Matthew 16:18. “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The Jesus Christ I know & love keeps His promises so I’m going with His church.
 
Horton said:
The Catholic Church, which I belong to, does not change in doctrine. What we believe is the deposit of faith left by Jesus Christ to the Apostles. Some of that deposit of faith has been developed further but not CHANGED!

There have been some changes that were not doctrine, such as Mass being celebrated in the vernacular and the priests facing the people during the consecration. While those are changes, it does not change what we believe and did not change what the Mass is. We pray the same prayers said by the early church. We believe the Eucharist is the same as the early church. We believe in the Trinity. We say the same Nicene creed developed in 325 and amended in 381.

The Catholic Church has clear and documented Apostolic succession from Peter to Francis. We have the Church Jesus Christ gave to the people in 33 AD and that has not nor can not change. It’s in the promise of Jesus Christ Matthew 16:18. “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The Jesus Christ I know & love keeps His promises so I’m going with His church.
Click to expand...
Yup.
Truth never changes.
 
Horton said:
The Catholic Church, which I belong to, does not change in doctrine. What we believe is the deposit of faith left by Jesus Christ to the Apostles. Some of that deposit of faith has been developed further but not CHANGED!

There have been some changes that were not doctrine, such as Mass being celebrated in the vernacular and the priests facing the people during the consecration. While those are changes, it does not change what we believe and did not change what the Mass is. We pray the same prayers said by the early church. We believe the Eucharist is the same as the early church. We believe in the Trinity. We say the same Nicene creed developed in 325 and amended in 381.

The Catholic Church has clear and documented Apostolic succession from Peter to Francis. We have the Church Jesus Christ gave to the people in 33 AD and that has not nor can not change. It’s in the promise of Jesus Christ Matthew 16:18. “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The Jesus Christ I know & love keeps His promises so I’m going with His church.
Click to expand...
Well said and Amen. 👍
 
Strydersroom said:
It depends on who’s truth you’re talking about.

That’s what I like about science, it’s true no matter what you believe.
Click to expand...
Not much of a historian of scientific development, I would guess.🤷

Over the past 2 millennium, scientific “truth” has changed many times, where as the “truth” we Catholics subscribe to have been unwavering.

New evidence has given cause for revised scientific “truth”; but with the completion of God’s revelation, the basic truths of our faith are, and will remain, consistent.
 
Strydersroom said:
It depends on who’s truth you’re talking about.

That’s what I like about science, it’s true no matter what you believe.
Click to expand...
Well, to be completely accurate, science relies on inductive reasoning, which does not give 100% true conclusions , albeit science requires a very high threshold. I think my logic professor said on a scale, the conclusions that need to be accepted for science is in the 90% range.
 
TOmNossor said:
Has The Religion to Which You Belong CHANGED Throughout its History and What Does This Mean?
I have thought about this thread for a while. I am a LDS (a Mormon).
Have we CHANGED our structure, our doctrine, our size, our location(s)? Yes to all that and more.

What does it mean?

I belong to a religion that burst upon the scene of New England in 1830. Our foundational narrative dislodged us from some to a lot of the Christian world in a way similar to the foundational narrative of first century Christianity dislodging it from some to a lot of the Jewish world. Over this less than 200 years we have been trying to figure out (with our purported divine help, but still figuring) what we as a people believe. We are still figuring and thus we are still CHANGING.
Add to this the fact that we as a people believe that God still reveals truth to the MAN who we recognize as a prophet for the entire church. This creates further changes.

Now, there are things in which I have faith even certitude. Believing as I do concerning change this certitude is not some analytic proposition, just faith. I have faith that the church will not up and decide that Christ is no longer central to our teachings. I have faith like this in other doctrines to. But I reserve complete faith only for God.

So, in conclusion, I belong to a church that CHANGES. This CHANGING is baked into our foundation and our continuation. I expect it to continue, but it is clear to me that such changing is not inconsistent with our doctrine or our view of our church.

Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
More importantly, has the Church you belong to changed its position on a doctrine such that it now teaches something completely contradictory to what it taught in the past?

For example, prior to 1930 all Protestant denominations taught that the use of artificial birth control was sinful. Today, they all teach the exact opposite.

So, were they in error prior to 1930? Or are they in error today?

Doctrine develops over time as our knowledge increases and our understanding improves, so I, too, belong to a Church that changes, and I expect this to continue.

But the Catholic Church has never contradicted or reversed itself in this manner on any doctrine, and I do not expect that it ever will because it is infallible when teaching formally on matters of faith and morals.
 
While I don’t belong to any particular religion my spiritual practices and beliefs change as I study and learn. As humans I believe we are very averse to change we don’t like being out of our comfort zone. I would think for religions to be “alive” or “living” that change would be necessary. If a religion doesn’t change it is dead. The changes may be something small(relatively?) as noted above regarding which way a priest faces or something major like allowing women as priests(these are simply examples from the top of my head).
There are many different denominations in Christianity. There are several (at least) sects of Buddhism and Islam as I understand. There are several different flavors of Judaism as well. I’m quite certain Hinduism has changed over the thousands of years it has been around. Change is good and in religion I would suppose it is necessary to keep folks on their toes spiritually so to speak.
Change is also natural. This is why we have different seasons and why we grow and mature and then die and decay. If you don’t like the word change you may always change it to transform.
 
Yes things have changed throughout the history of the Church. I don’t think change is necessarily good or bad. It depends on whether or not the essence of the faith has been changed to which I think there is good reason to believe the essence of the Orthodox Church’s faith is unchanged while there have been clarifications or ideas which have tried to explain the simple unchanging reality of who God is and what he has done.
 
Truth is unchanging, but our understanding of it is incomplete and it is possible for our understanding to grow. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has something to say about change, for example:
79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church—and through her in the world—leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.”
and
Growth in understanding the faith

94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

— “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”; it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth.”

— “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience,” the sacred Scriptures “grow with the one who reads them.”

—“from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth.”
and
99 Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith, the People of God as a whole never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply, and to live more fully from the gift of divine Revelation.
 
Strydersroom said:
… That’s what I like about science, it’s true no matter what you believe.
Click to expand...
Scientific theories have always left room for improvement. For example, classical physics was pretty good, but experiment and experience showed that it was just a tiny bit off, and this led to the development of relativity and quantum mechanics. Those provide us with a better understanding (or at least a better description of the behavior) of the physical world, but still not a complete understanding.

Surely there is only one version of scientific truth. We just don’t know what it is yet, and perhaps never will.
 
Not only have religions I have associated with changed, but I myself have changed. My beliefs, and my understanding of those beliefs, and my understanding of reality have changed and continue to change. I accept change in me, and I accept change in others. You can see politicians blaming their opponents for changing their opinions, as though there is something suspicious or wicked about changing one’s opinions, while defensively justifying their own changes of opinion by saying “they evolved”. Opinions change, people change, religions change.

But if we are talking about some specific aspect of religion rather than a vague generality that might miss important details, they do not all change, no. Most of the religions I have associated with have advocated belief in a single, unique God since their founding and continue to believe in a single, unique God today.

For the most part, the leaders of the Catholic Church seem to admit where changes were made. I only got in one discussion about doctrinal changes, and there the consensus - the unanimity - was that the doctrines had never changed. I do not know whether that is true, but it is what they believed. Nevertheless, the doctrines about God are the same or essentially the same today as they ever were. There obviously is fine tuning of detail, and greater precision of explanation, but the changes do not (yet) seem to me to be problematic. Of course, the Church’s self-perception of its role in purely here-and-now social issues as opposed to spiritual issues is different, and the structure and method of administering the church is different That is more due to changes in society, technology, and pragmatic necessity, than due to change in “religion” as a world-view.

Some religions do change their beliefs and they do admit they have changed. An example is the Worldwide Church of God formerly led by Herbert W. Armstrong. They held an untraditional view of God and of Jesus. After Armstrong’s death, that Church publicly admitted their error and embraced traditional views of God the Father and of Jesus. Armstrong’s son, however, led a group which continued to promote the untraditional beliefs.

Other religious groups *change *doctrines while denying that they changed anything. I find that problematic for one who is seeking to know historical truth as well as doctrinal truth. One religious group of my acquaintance once taught that certain members of their group were free of sin and in fact could not sin. When some of those people were caught in serious sins, they were defended with the explanation that “since they didn’t have original sin to begin with,” the sins they commit aren’t as bad as if someone else had committed them. And they denied that the former teachings had been taught. When they are shown the former teachings, they say things like, “it was if conditions were ideal,” or “it wasn’t to be taken literally,” or “if the people around them hadn’t tempted them,” and things like that. They changed, embraced the change, then denied the change had ever taken place.

What do all these changes mean in all these religions? That mankind seeks to know the truth. That we learn as we go. As we find new evidence, or discovery new ways of reasoning, our views and opinions change. When we make the changes some of us are honest about the fact, and some of us are less than honest. The net result is that progress is made in our understanding of God, the cosmos, and man’s role in it, the concerns of religion.
 
Sunnism is generally considered to be the Orthodox form of Islam and I was a part of it for about 4 years. I left the sunni faith because of sunni people. They generally prescribe the death penalty upon apostates, which is, in my opinion, unscriptural and dangerous. Moreover, they tend to trust scholars over scripture. They quote fatwas all the time, but rarely do they quote the Qur’an.

Looking back, I don’t regret it. Sunnism became corrupt when it started sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong. An apostate should be cared for and prayed for-- not insulted or killed. So yeah, I would say that the Sunni denomination of Islam has changed. It’s changed in terms of how it treats people.
 
Thanks to everyone for their responses.
StJoseph8: I agree “dislodge” was not an ideal word. I was searching.
Strydersroom: Change does create stress (both good and bad) for humans. I of course read into every answer I see all of my past history and yours was no different. I would suggest that change through technological advances (often) and greater social understanding like moving past racism (always) is very good. That being said, there are changes that are recognized as harmful by most folks. The large increase in the number of children who never know their father is a change in our society that most would recognize as a negative. It is caused by changes in our society that lead to it and one could argue that those changes are away from TRUTH for many reasons the most obvious being the ills of children without fathers. So, it is tough to know which changes should be celebrated, which changes are obviously problems, and which changes are right/wrong but their impact is obscured by decades or centuries.
Horton: Thank you also for your response. I suspect you and I are closer in many of our thoughts on change than we to Strydersroom. There are of course folks who are farther from Strydersroom than you are in that they tolerate even less change in their view of religion. I generally think they have missed something, but I find myself occasionally quite taken by their arguments.

More answers and more thanks for answering. I will try to respond to a few things, but thanks to everyone has responded.
Charity, TOm
 
TOmNossor said:
Thanks to everyone for their responses.
StJoseph8: I agree “dislodge” was not an ideal word. I was searching.
Strydersroom: Change does create stress (both good and bad) for humans. I of course read into every answer I see all of my past history and yours was no different. I would suggest that change through technological advances (often) and greater social understanding like moving past racism (always) is very good. That being said, there are changes that are recognized as harmful by most folks. The large increase in the number of children who never know their father is a change in our society that most would recognize as a negative. It is caused by changes in our society that lead to it and one could argue that those changes are away from TRUTH for many reasons the most obvious being the ills of children without fathers. So, it is tough to know which changes should be celebrated, which changes are obviously problems, and which changes are right/wrong but their impact is obscured by decades or centuries.
**Horton: Thank you also for your response. I suspect you and I are closer in many of our thoughts on change than we to Strydersroom. There are of course folks who are farther from Strydersroom than you are in that they tolerate even less change in their view of religion. I generally think they have missed something, but I find myself occasionally quite taken by their arguments.
**

More answers and more thanks for answering. I will try to respond to a few things, but thanks to everyone has responded.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
I appreciate your thoughts on this but in the realm of change in religion I’m not so sure we are close together. Closer than Strydersroom’s atheism but not close in beliefs. As a Catholic I believe with all I am my church has not changed in a significant way since Jesus Christ instituted it in 33AD. There was no apostasy, great or otherwise, our faith did not disappear at the death of the last Apostles or at any other time. The Father is God, Jesus is God, and The Holy Spirit is God, the Trinity. Man does not become a god and God was never a man. We believe the bible is the Word of God and is completed and correctly translated. We believe in the sacraments of Baptism, Holy Communion, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, Reconciliation, and Anointing of the Sick.

What the LDS believe is in direct opposition to what Jesus Christ gave us in 33AD as His church.
 
Randy_Carson said:
More importantly, has the Church you belong to changed its position on a doctrine such that it now teaches something completely contradictory to what it taught in the past?

For example, prior to 1930 all Protestant denominations taught that the use of artificial birth control was sinful. Today, they all teach the exact opposite.

So, were they in error prior to 1930? Or are they in error today?
Click to expand...
Well, I think that it is quite possible that churches move from error to truth and that is good. Most of us here believe in the inspiration of the New Testament.
I see a few different changes that happened within the church during New Testament times. A very benign one would be woman wearing hats at church. A silly question to most of us, but not to a Sihk. I much more important one would be associated with the Council of Jerusalem.

It would seem you are staking out a position that to be “the exact opposite” is to be in error before or in error after.

I have a few questions.
  1. It would seem moving from error to non-error is a positive. What are your thoughts on this?
  2. “Exact opposite” is not always as clear. In your example, it would suggest that virtually no Protestant denomination advocates constant use of artificial birth control. I personally read my churches position on this as discouraging indiscriminate use of birth control of ANY sort because the command to “multiply and replenish the earth” is in full effect. But the allowance of some freedom for individuals to prayerfully decide for themselves how they should carry out the commandment and if financial or health concerns warrant some form of birth control. Is that the “exact opposite?” Is that a problem?
  3. I think the hats thing is interesting. Another example mentioned on this thread is that the Catholic Priest faces the opposite direction during the consecration. I personally would not suggest such a change is a doctrine (concerning “faith and morals, …), but how do we know that this change is not a problem and the birth control is a problem? I could provide an answer here for sure, but I will let you offer yours.
  4. I would suggest that the relative safety and effectiveness of artificial birth control is a technological change that resulted in a change in teaching. Can you think of changes in teaching that have come about because of changes in technology that are NOT problematic? How would we know the difference?
Charity, TOm

P.S. I see some similar themes from Puzzledtoo & IgnatianPhilo, Phil at daybro, Beryillos, Tarquin. If any of you want to chime in on my questions that would be great.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top