If the Church/Pope claim to be absolutely infallaible, why has it altered teachings/contradicted itself?

[JapaneseKappa]

No matter who you quote, an ad hominem attack is still an ad hominem attack.

So then, disprove the argument, but don’t attack the one who argues it. Sorry. It just doesn’t work as a valid rebuttal.

Ah. I understand why you’re confused. The original poster I was responding to had quoted the author of the piece I posted as asserting that the church had not changed its position. I.e. the poster made an appeal to authority. My response was not an attempt to disprove the author’s assertion, it was to defeat the appeal to authority. That is to say, while I agree that the author is an authority on the various details of the history of the Catholic church’s teachings on slavery, I believe he has strong motivations for drawing certain conclusions from those details. That is why I originally suggested you all take a look at the document for yourselves: I believed the well researched details provided by the author are perfectly reliable, but I wanted people to form their own conclusions rather than simply accept the author’s.

 

[Gorgias]

Ah. I understand why you’re confused. The original poster I was responding to had quoted the author of the piece I posted as asserting that the church had not changed its position. I.e. the poster made an appeal to authority. …I believe he has strong motivations for drawing certain conclusions from those details.

I see. So then, you rebutted a logical fallacy with… a different logical fallacy? Got it.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I see. So then, you rebutted a logical fallacy with… a different logical fallacy? Got it.

An appeal to authority isn’t always a fallacy, but it does make the credentials of the authority appealed to a subject of debate.

 

[edwayne]

I am posting the following from the standpoint that “there is no such thing as a ‘stupid question’.” I think I know the answer, but I freely and openly admit that could be wrong.

I am under the impression that there are only two infallible doctrines, where the Pope spoke from the “chair of Peter”, throughout the entire history of the Catholic Church.

These are the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. Two times in nearly 2,000 years. Am I wrong about this? Am I missing something?

Here is a list of all of the ex cathedra pronouncements outside of Councils that I copied from somewhere some years ago.

In a book published in 1954 by Fathers Leslie Rumble & Charles Carty (of the Radio Replies series, the best-known Roman Catholic apologists of the 1940s and 1950s), That Catholic Church: A Radio Analysis gave the following list (reformatted for readability but otherwise unchanged) of papal statements regarded as ex cathedra (on Question/Answer #314 on page 80):

Leo I, Lectis Dilectionis Tuae, 13 June 449,
On the divinity of Christ.
Agatho, Omnium Bonorum Spes, ~680,
On the divine and human wills in Christ.
Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam, 18 Nov 1302,
On papal supremacy in the Church.
Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, 29 Jan 1336,
On the heavenly destiny of saints.
Leo X, Exsurge Domine, 15 June 1520,
Condemning the errors of Martin Luther.
Innocent X, Cum Occasione, 31 May 1653,
Condemning the errors of the Jansenists.
Innocent XI, Coelestis Pastor, 19 Nov 1687,
Condemning the erros of the Quietists.
Clement XI, Unigenitus, 8 Sept 1713,
Condemning the false teachings of Paschasius Quesnel.
Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 28 Aug 1794,
Condemning the false teachings of the Synod of Pistoia.
Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 Dec 1854,
Defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
also, Quantae Cura, 8 Dec 1864,
Condemning the erros of secularism and communism.
Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 13 Sept 1896,
Condemning Anglican orders as null and void.
also, Testem Benevolentiae, 22 Jan 1899,
Condemning merely Naturalistic interpretations of Christian Activities.
[A few theologians say these two are not technically ex cathedra.]
Pius X, Lamentabili, 3 July 1907, also, Pascendi, 7 Sept, 1907,
Condeming the errors of the Modernists.
Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 31 Dec 1930,
Calling contraceptive birth control a grave violation of the Law of God.
Quadragesimo Anno, 15 May 1931,
Condeming materialistic socialism.
[These two are “very probably” comply with ex cathedra requirements]
Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 1 Nov 1950,
Defining the dogma of the Assumption.

 

[Gorgias]

An appeal to authority isn’t always a fallacy, but it does make the credentials of the authority appealed to a subject of debate.

Ahh, but you didn’t debate his ‘credentials’… you called into question his integrity. :sad_yes:

 

[lynnvinc]

I have asked two parish priests a similar question to the one you raise here. I was very concerned that the Pope’s press interviews, a number of his homilies, writings, opinions, and off the cuff remarks are at odds with established Catholic teaching and belief. Apparently other parishioners have raise these exact same concerns.

Both priests have assured me emphatically! that Catholic doctrine has not been changed! It takes a whole lot more than a Pope voicing his opinions on climate change, recycling and sustainable living, ownership of stock in weapons manufacturers, immigration policy, divorce and remarriage and the like for Catholic doctrine to change. …

There are even more fundamental principles that do not change – such as “Thou shalt not kill.”

It sometimes becomes more apparent that we are harming and killing people (or contributing to their harm or death) through various actions that were not harmful or did not occur in the past.

All Catholics should have some knowledge of these and be able to come up with solutions. However, often we are busy, so popes are correct and in line with doctrine by telling us to mitigate climate change and other serious environmental harms that harm and kill people, and to live more sustainably. This is not a change in doctrine at all, but an application of very old and fundamental doctrine – “thou shalt not kill” – to modern circumstances.

It’s just too bad we all don’t just do the right thing, and have to have JPII, BXVI, and Pope Francis point out that we should be doing those things to reduce our harms to others.

 

[goout]

Recently I’ve read about how Pius XI apparently declared a teaching of Leo XIII as an “evil opinion”, and about how Francis’s new teachings and assertions are somewhat radical (allowing unrepentant, public adulterers to receive the Holy Eucharist). The passage about Leo XIII and Pius XI was actually written by a Catholic priest who seems to be highly educated towards the faith; it seemed to me like he was acknowledging that the Church has changed its teachings/contradicted itself.

The Roman Catholic Church prides itself on being correct on every last one of its claims and teachings (and from what I understand, the Church uses this as a primary basis for its “validity”). The Pope is traditionally seen as being absolutely infallible in all of his teachings. Yet here we see blatant examples of apparent contradictions in the Catholic Church. We see Pius IX not merely altering Catholic teachings from what Leo XIII asserted…we see him absolutely condemning his teachings and calling them evil. Even today, Francis is now going against previously “solid” Church teachings.

So…shouldn’t the fact that the Catholic Church has ever changed its teachings or has ever had contradictions render the Church as invalid – considering it insists that it has never changed its teachings?

Interested in hearing the Catholic defense of these points

The Church does not pride itself on being correct. It conveys the fullness of Truth, and that is a different thing, although similar.

The Church is the living body of Christ. It is key to accept that the Church is alive, not merely a book of doctrinal teachings and infallible pronouncements. A living organism develops. If it does not develop, it is dead. The Church cannot be dead.

Think of a seed which grows into a tree.
Question for you: Is the seed a living part of the tree?
If not, where is it? Can we ever say that a tree has ruptured with it’s seed?
No. The tree has living continuity with it’s seed.

So it is with the Church and it’s growth through time. Christ has inseminated the Church with his life. In it’s human dimension, the Church develops. At the same time Christ shares** his **infallibility with the Church. Infallibility is a shared gift, not a merely human assertion of authority.

 

[grannymh]

In the Catholic Church, the word infallible describes a truth Doctrine which has been properly defined and duly declared in a major Ecumenical Catholic Church Council which is guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

Further properly defined explanations of a particular Catholic Doctrine can be added in the following major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils which continue to be guided by the Holy Spirit’s wisdom.

The unique Ex cathedra process follows the same serious preparation as that which precedes a major Council. The unique Ex Cathedra pronouncement has only been used a few times.

Not one properly defined official doctrine has been rescinded. Opinions about a particular doctrine are everywhere. Opinions do not have the power to change or update real doctrines.

Sincere correct teachings about a doctrine are valued.