V
VARC
Guest
I really hope that you’re joking. That’s textbook occultism.
- Status
V
VARC
Guest
It’s an interesting question and I know what you’re getting at. No catholic is going to answer that question because for them it is an impossibility. I got into an argument with a felloow catholic about ectopic pregnancy and it finally came out that the church cannot change its position because the “fabric of belief would crumble”. As if her faith in Christ would collapse if the church revised its position concerning that issue.
As a catholic my faith was always troubled when the pope revised this doctrine or made that statement. Always hoping that he wouldn’t come out tommorow and change a dogma so my faith in Christ wouldn’t collapse. It was very exhausting trying to harmonize the positions of different popes and justifying to myself the different difficulties in catholic belief.
I know I’m going to get pounced by my former brethren. But I just wanted to say that I understand the question.
S
Stephen_C
Guest
Why do you want to play this what if game? I really do not understand. I am Catholic! I believe the Catholic Church was the one founded by Christ! I believe the Catholic Church is protected from teaching error on matters faith and morals. From that all things flow…
Peace be with you always!
Peace be with you always!
R
Rolltide
Guest
As defined elsewhere on this board:
Code:
* Dogma - teachings left to us by the Apostles. Dogmas includes both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It is infallible, and it cannot be altered, changed, added to, or subtracted from.
* Doctrine - This is a formally defined teaching which has been promulgated by an ecumenical council (like Nicaea or Trent) or declared an infallible teaching by a reigning Pontiff. Doctrine is also infallible, and also cannot be changed---but it likewise cannot contradict Scripture, Tradition, any previous infallible statement, or another doctrine. Examples include the Immaculate Conception and the Holy Trinity.
* Discipline - This is an explanation of some aspect of the Faith. It is not infallible, and can be changed, evolved, condemned, or abandoned. Examples of this are limbo and Mary as Co-Redemptrix.
* Practice - This is a rule established by the Church to help the believer walk the straight and narrow path; examples include clerical celibacy, not eating meat on Fridays during Lent, and fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
* Devotion - The lowest level of Catholic belief; devotions are usually more or less up to the individual believer to practice or not. This category includes such things as the Rosary, First Friday devotions, first Saturday devotions, etc.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=197935&page=2&highlight=dogma+doctrine+tradition
Since the apostles and their successors were given the power to “bind and loose,” the Church has always understood that there are some aspects of ecclesial life that are not immutable, while also clear that some teachings are eternal and immutable.
The “how” of determining the mutable from the immutable involves Catholic Dogmatic Theology. Like any field of study, there are levels of certainty of various propositions. In physical science, the highest levels of certainty are called the “laws” of science, (e.g. the law of gravity). Some things are believed to be true with absolute certainty, some with various other levels of certainty based upon a reasonable discernment of the evidence, and some are considered doubtful matters because we simply lack clear evidence.
In Catholic Dogmatic Theology, the living Magisterium discerns that which was taught and handed on to her from the 1st century “deposit of faith” and judges what level of theological certainty exists for various ecclesial teachings.
De fide (“of faith”) teachings “to be believed” (Lat “credenda”) are always immutable, understood to be taught infallibly by the Church, and demand the assent of faith. Obstinate denial or doubt results in heresy, a grave sin against the virtue of faith.
De fide (“of faith”) teachings “to be held” (Lat “tenenda”) are always immutable, understood to be taught infallibly by the Church, and demand the assent of faith. However, they are not formally taught by the Church as “divinely revealed” (but may be so defined later, after much prayerful contemplation of Scripture and Tradition). Obstinate denial or doubt of de fide tenenda is contrary to ecclesial unity or in military terms “good order and conduct,” which is a grave sin against charity and results in lack of “full communion” with the Catholic Church.
continued…
R
Rolltide
Guest
Sententia Certa (“certain doctrine”) is held to be binding upon the faithful so long as the magisterium holds it binding by law. However, doctrine that is not deemed by the magisterium as manifestly de fide is not immutable. Doctrines demand the “religious assent” of the faithful. Obstinate refusal to give religious submission is a grave sin which is censurable under canon law. Some doctrinal affirmations of the Church may be binding for a time, but loosed another time, as their may be an admixture of error within such doctrine, which over time becomes more magisterially clarified through prayerful contemplation of the deposit of faith. I really can’t think of doctrine that was binding but later loosed excepting perhaps the doctrine regarding the immovable earth back in Galileo’s day, but there’s some uncertainty as to whether that was an exercise of magisterial authority or judicial (disciplinary) authority. Nonetheless, sententia certa is not, theologically speaking, immutable in the eyes of the Church, but the weight of tradition gives it ecclesial certainty sufficient to bind the faithful toward religious assent.
Theological speculation and/or “common teaching” (sententia communis) are both part of “free opinion” which has no binding quality by canon law.
There are other levels or “theological notes” within Catholic Dogmatic theology, but the above is a broad breakdown.
Lastly, ecclesial discipline is infallible in the indirect and negative sense. That is, while not immutable, the general discipline of the universal Church can never be considered harmful or dangerous to the faithful. Pius VI condemned the contrary proposition. Nonetheless, such discipline may not always be prudent or “fitting” for contemporary times, so disciplinary norms are always changeable by lawful ecclesial authorities, depending upon the contemporary circumstances.
The three “D’s” are binding upon all Catholics: Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline. Only de fide tenenda and de fide credenda are infallible and immutable.
For an introduction to Catholic Dogmatic Theology, see here:
Introduction to Catholic dogmatic theology
For a non-exhaustive listing of the de fide dogmas and certain doctrines of Catholicism, see here:
Catholic Dogmas and Doctrine
Theological speculation and/or “common teaching” (sententia communis) are both part of “free opinion” which has no binding quality by canon law.
There are other levels or “theological notes” within Catholic Dogmatic theology, but the above is a broad breakdown.
Lastly, ecclesial discipline is infallible in the indirect and negative sense. That is, while not immutable, the general discipline of the universal Church can never be considered harmful or dangerous to the faithful. Pius VI condemned the contrary proposition. Nonetheless, such discipline may not always be prudent or “fitting” for contemporary times, so disciplinary norms are always changeable by lawful ecclesial authorities, depending upon the contemporary circumstances.
The three “D’s” are binding upon all Catholics: Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline. Only de fide tenenda and de fide credenda are infallible and immutable.
For an introduction to Catholic Dogmatic Theology, see here:
Introduction to Catholic dogmatic theology
For a non-exhaustive listing of the de fide dogmas and certain doctrines of Catholicism, see here:
Catholic Dogmas and Doctrine
R
Rolltide
Guest
So, after all that in my previous two posts, the answer is…
No, dogma cannot be changed. BUT… by the definitions I just found, it would actually be considered a doctrine, so I stand corrected. In theory, I suppose, that means that it could be changed if irrefutable evidence from the Apostles or Jesus himself were found.
No, dogma cannot be changed. BUT… by the definitions I just found, it would actually be considered a doctrine, so I stand corrected. In theory, I suppose, that means that it could be changed if irrefutable evidence from the Apostles or Jesus himself were found.
W
water
Guest
Imagine somebody asked what if we all later find out the Bible wasn’t authentic at all. What would we do next?
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
What if it was decided that 1+1=4? Since another of the Church’s dogmas is that no dogma can contradict any other dogma, the situation is an impossible one, so we needn’t worry about or theorize about it in the least (other than to destroy it as we’ve just done).
Since it is a truth, it is vitally necessary to believe it fully as to not do so utterly destroys all truth.
The denial of truth renders the universe meaningless, and effectively “null”, which means “we’re all free to do precisely as we wish”.
One can ASSUME that is in fact the case, and what does that assumption produce? Do you really want to live in a world operating on that presumption?
Luckily, God has created a creation where that is not a correct assumption. Praise be!
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
Every child is born sinless, please don’t burden an innocent with sins, that won’t diminish status of Jesus.
Thanks
F
FaithofAbraham
Guest
If anyone dies a physical death they are born with the curse of original sin from Adam. Death is the mark of the curse. If someone says Jesus didn’t have original sin they are denying his death and resurrection.
V
VARC
Guest
That may be your take on orignal sin but I have never heard it explained that way. Original sin causes natural death. Eve could have cut Adam’s head off before his fall and he still would have died. No christian understands original sin in the sense that you describe. I can only assume that the “faith of abraham” is something other than christianity according to you.
F
FaithofAbraham
Guest
I don’t know about cutting Adam’s head off, maybe a new one would grow back as long as he ate from the Tree of Life, you are supposed to live forever no matter what if you have that.
Death is the penalty Adam passed on to humanity, that’s the proof whoever dies has original sin.
That is only removed for the people resurrected when Jesus returns, then everyone else after 1000 years after Judgment.
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
I cant tell a doctrine from a dogma, so I wont enter that part of the discussion. I will answer the question this way.
If I found out that Mary wasnt. It wouldnt change my thoughts and feeling regarding Jesus. It may be disapointing, but its not a deal breaker.
Why would I base anything on one part of Jesus existance? How could I judge Him on one thing and ignore all the rest that Hes done. What kind of a shallow person would I be?
Find me someone on this earth who would enjoy being judged by one item out of their otherwise not bad existance.
Not saying people dont do that to others, but its wrong isnt it?
P
paarsurrey
Guest
HiIt could never be disavowed, because it was dogmatically proclaimed, even though it was believed by Christians from the earliest days of Christ’s Catholic Church.
So we have nothing to worry about!
Pace e Bene
Andrew
I agree with you. If status of Moses remains the same, though his mother did not have uncommon conception , so should be with Jesus.
Thanks
P
paarsurrey
Guest
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
I agree with you. I think every ProphetMessenger of GodAllahYHWH is a savior, as through the ProphetsMessengers we get to know the pathe which saves human beings from sins; though GodAllahYHWH is the real saviour.
Thanks
P
paarsurrey
Guest
P
paarsurrey
Guest
HiThat would be the definition of zealotry, not that that’s a bad thing…
Don’t be a zealot friend 2ndGen.
Thanks
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
Now that was not good of that Protestant girl to say that Mary was like only a suitcase, that is an attempt to diminish status of Mary. How many girls are there in this world who are visited by an Angel and they have conversation with GodAllahYHWH. So that establishes Mary’s status with GodAllahYHWH and everybody should respect her status, though there is no need, in my opinion, to believe in immaculate/perpetual conception/birth as every child is born innocent and is not sinful.
Thanks
P
paarsurrey
Guest
HiWell, your question is more interesting that you think. If the Immaculate Conception had not already been dogmatically and infallibly defined by the pope, then it wouldn’t likely be a tremendous issue. The problem, however, is that it HAS been dogmatically and infallibly defined. In other words, it is one of those items of faith, like the Trinity and the divinity of God, that can never be changed by the Catholic Church. It must continue to hold the position, and once declared, even a pope cannot “undefine” it. The consequences of an unchangeable dogma of the Catholic Church being proven false would mean that the whole idea of dogma would collapse like a house of cards. If it could be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, it would be a sign that the Holy Spirit was not with the Catholic Church and it was not the true faith. If an infallible declaration of the Immaculate Conception was incorrect, then how could you ever trust more critical dogmas like the Trinity, which were also defined by the Catholic Church?
That said, I have absolutely NO concern of that scenario ever arising.
In my opinion,**Trinity,divinity of Jesus and perptetual virginity **of Mary don’t have a very clearly defined dogmas based on straightforward words from Jesus. If Catholic Church could prepare dogmas for the Catholics, then logically in my opinion, they should have not objection if at a later stage the Catholic Church reverses its earlier stance. If they were authorised for a change earlier logically they should have authorisation for a change later also.
Naturall one could differ with me with reasons.
Thanks
- Status