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

[JapaneseKappa]

To test that

Do you have a specific example in the last 2000 years, where a teaching (doctrine/dogma) from a pope on faith or morals (must be in those 2 areas) and that teaching has been declared a (doctrine/dogma) for the entire Church to believe, THEN that teaching (doctrine/dogma) was later overturned or discredited?

Go ahead and take a look at this:
anthonyflood.com/maxwellslaverycatholicchurch.pdf
which bears an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.
See especially pages 79 - 88, up to the section labeled

The gradual appreciation of the existence of errors in the common Catholic teaching on slavery, leading to their long-delayed official correction, 1573-1965.

Especially

**The question whether the moral legitimacy of the institution of slavery can be shown from Holy Scripture, sixteenth century to eighteenth century. **
There was no doubt in the minds of the moralists of this period that it was evident from Holy Scripture that slavery was not contrary to divine law.

and

The question whether it is de-fide that the institution of slavery is morally legitimate, seventeenth century.
At this time it was a tenable theological opinion that the moral legitimacy of “legal slavery”, that is, slave-holding by one of the titles of Roman civil law, could not be denied without prejudice to the Catholic faith.

 

[pablope]

Go ahead and take a look at this:
anthonyflood.com/maxwellslaverycatholicchurch.pdf
which bears an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.
See especially pages 79 - 88, up to the section labeled
Especially
and

Firstly…you have to define which slavery you are talking about…there are different kinds of slavery.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/controversies/slavery-and-the-catholic-church/

The issue and history of slavery are quite complex. Throughout history, the Church found Herself among cultures practicing slavery and had to deal with it. …There are many examples of saints buying slaves and then setting them free (e.g. St. Nicholas, Trinitarian Fathers & White Fathers). Unfortunately there were also Catholics and even clergy, who participated in slavery, and their sins caused scandal to the Church…During biblical times, a man could voluntarily sell himself into slavery in order to pay off his debts (Deut. 15:12-18). But such slaves were to be freed on the seventh year or the Jubilee year (Lev. 25:54). The Church tolerated just-title servitude for a time because it is not wrong in itself, though it can be seriously abused. The Popes did, however, consistently oppose racial slavery which completely lacks any moral justification.

Now we usually think of slavery in terms of innocent people who were unjustly captured and reduced to “beasts of burden” due solely to their race. This was the most common form in the U.S. before the Thirteenth Amendment. This form of slavery, known as racial slavery, began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned by the Popes as early as 1435, fifty-seven years before Columbus discovered America. In 1404, the Spanish discovered the Canary Islands. They began to colonize the island and enslave its people. Pope Eugene IV in 1435 wrote to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote in his Bull, Sicut Dudum:

A century later, the Spanish and Portuguese were colonizing South America. Unfortunately the practice of slavery did not end. Even though far from being a saint, Pope Paul III in 1537 issued a Bull against slavery, entitled Sublimis Deus, to the universal Church. He wrote:

 

[Duane1966]

Go ahead and take a look at this:
anthonyflood.com/maxwellslaverycatholicchurch.pdf
which bears an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.
See especially pages 79 - 88, up to the section labeled
Especially
and

Did you read this, from the document you posted?

Today both clergy and laity understand better that if for over 1,400 years die Church’s fallible ordinary magisterium was mistaken in its interpretation of the natural moral
law concerning the institution of slavery, this in no way impugns the infallibility of the Church. For in no case were the criteria met for a statement of the magisterium on slavery to be infallible.

 

[Chipper]

Popes are not walking encyclopedias.
They have opinions, and in general, are often misquoted or have their words twisted, sometimes, even by the members of the church.
Don’t fall into the trap of picking apart everything Pope Francis says.
The prince of lies would LOVE us to continue to do this.

Okay how about this out of Amoris Laetitia. The Pope’s Apostolic Exhortation

Paragraph AL297 “…No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.”

It seems to me that this is way outside of traditional Catholic Teaching, Catechism and Biblical teaching too.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Firstly…you have to define which slavery you are talking about…there are different kinds of slavery.
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/controversies/slavery-and-the-catholic-church/

Perhaps you should actually read the document I posted. Included in the pages I recommended is the section:

The distinction between chattel-slavery which is morally unjust and an ameliorated slavery which is morally legitimate, 1633-1958.
This distinction was soon explained as the radical difference between unjust chattel-slavery in which the master had full rights of ownership over the slave as his personal property, and a just Christian slavery in which the master merely had a right of use, a dominium utile, a perpetual right of disposing of the work of his slave for his own benefit. This distinction… was made use of by the Holy Office in 1866. It was useful in practice, because it emphasized that Christian masters had the duty of respecting the life and marriage and personal property (peculium) and reputation of their slaves; but the metaphysical distinction between the person and acts of the slave failed to explain the facts…
This distinction between a chattel-slavery which is morally unjust and an ameliorated slavery which is morally legitimate was part of the common teaching of the moralists in the eighteenth century, through the nineteenth century, and indeed during the twentieth century until the time of the second Vatican Council.

I.e. your distinction is no longer relevant, since the church now opposes all forms of slavery.

A century later, the Spanish and Portuguese were colonizing South America. Unfortunately the practice of slavery did not end. Even though far from being a saint, Pope Paul III in 1537 issued a Bull against slavery, entitled Sublimis Deus, to the universal Church. He wrote:

If you look closely, you’ll see that most early (14-1600s) proclamations on slavery were mostly motivated by:

1. Concern that slaves were not taken “legitimately” (i.e. that they were not “enemies of Catholicism” or taken during a just war)
2. Concern for missionary effectiveness (its hard to convince people your religion is loving and peaceful if you’re simultaneously enslaving them.)
3. Desire to prevent the enslavement of Christians (by other Christians or enemies of Christianity)

Not by concern that the institution itself might be wrong.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Did you read this, from the document you posted?

Of course. Do you think a Catholic writer who gets his paycheck from the church, and is planning on getting an Imprimatur/nihil obstat is going to come out and say “lol the church totally changed its position on slavery.”

This document is very sympathetic to Catholicism, but it is sufficiently matter-of-fact that it is easy to see where the writer puts on “catholic goggles” and where he is simply reciting facts. Essentially the document reads like this:

Opinion: The church isn’t a duck. Lets look at its features.
According to source 1, the church walks like a duck.
According to source 2, the church quacks like a duck.
According to source 3, the church swims like a duck.
According to source 4, the church looks like a duck.
Conclusion: Its remarkable how duck-like the church is.

 

[Duane1966]

Of course. Do you think a Catholic writer who gets his paycheck from the church, and is planning on getting an Imprimatur/nihil obstat is going to come out and say “lol the church totally changed its position on slavery.”

This document is very sympathetic to Catholicism, but it is sufficiently matter-of-fact that it is easy to see where the writer puts on “catholic goggles” and where he is simply reciting facts. Essentially the document reads like this:

Opinion: The church isn’t a duck. Lets look at its features.
According to source 1, the church walks like a duck.
According to source 2, the church quacks like a duck.
According to source 3, the church swims like a duck.
According to source 4, the church looks like a duck.
Conclusion: Its remarkable how duck-like the church is.

So you are okay with this writer when he espouses your viewpoint, but when he says something that hurts your argument, you impugn his integrity.

 

[pablope]

Perhaps you should actually read the document I posted. Included in the pages I recommended is the section:I.e. your distinction is no longer relevant, since the church now opposes all forms of slavery.

If you look closely, you’ll see that most early (14-1600s) proclamations on slavery were mostly motivated by:

1. Concern that slaves were not taken “legitimately” (i.e. that they were not “enemies of Catholicism” or taken during a just war)
2. Concern for missionary effectiveness (its hard to convince people your religion is loving and peaceful if you’re simultaneously enslaving them.)
3. Desire to prevent the enslavement of Christians (by other Christians or enemies of Christianity)

 

[pablope]

Of course. Do you think a Catholic writer who gets his paycheck from the church, and is planning on getting an Imprimatur/nihil obstat is going to come out and say “lol the church totally changed its position on slavery.”

Really…so you have information that he is paid by the Catholic Church? Could you provide source documents to prove your statement?

And do you even understand what an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat is?

 

[steve_b]

That is powerful language, yes, and did prompt some people to ask whether it was meant to be an ex cathedra declaration. The official response from then-Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, however, was that the statement did not represent an exercise of the Pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium, but simply a strong restatement of a truth already irreformable as part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (basically, that the Magisterium had never taught anything otherwise).

Do you have the quote properly referenced?

I’m focusing on the language JPII used as defined by Vat I

(emphasis mine)

“we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
§ when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
§ that is, when,
**1. ****in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
**2. ****in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
**3. ****he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
§ he possesses,
§ by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
§ that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
§ Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

JPII deliberately used that language when defining that teaching on a male only priesthood
#36

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So you are okay with this writer when he espouses your viewpoint, but when he says something that hurts your argument, you impugn his integrity.

I’m quite happy when the writer provides a large set of claims that were immediately backed up by direct quotes and sources. The introduction was not one of those times.

 

[Duane1966]

Really…so you have information that he is paid by the Catholic Church? Could you provide source documents to prove your statement?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

so you have information that he is paid by the Catholic Church? Could you provide source documents to prove your statement?

And do you even understand what an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat is?

Directly from the document you’re evidently not interested in reading:

The author wishes to record his thanks to the Most Reverend Cyril C. Cowderoy, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Southwark, who released him from parochial duties between 1966 and 1973 and enabled him to do full-time research

Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat mean that you can’t simply dismiss this document as some kind of anti-Catholic propaganda.

 

[Reepicheep]

If it is acceptable to add or subtract the filioque, why then in the papal bull of 1054 excommunicating Patriarch Cerularius, why was it mentioned that one reason for the excommunication was that he had omitted the filioque from the creed?
(Snipped)
Secondly, I see a difference between all and many. For example, do you say that the following two statements mean the same thing?
Many Americans are Catholic.
All Americans are Catholic.

It Is not acceptable to add or subtract the filioque. There is, however, a difference between someone speaking casually and someone making official pronouncements.

And yes, of course there is a difference between all and many. However:

1. There are many saints in Heaven. All the Saints are in Heaven. No contradiction.
   Context matters.

2). There is a difference between someone speaking casually and someone making official pronouncements.

Casual statement: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The person making this casual statement is not necessarily making any claim to the effect that the Holy Spirit proceeds* only *from the Father.

But if Patriarch Cerularius had been issuing official pronouncements to those under his authority to the effect that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son but solely from the father, then he was actively contradicting already established doctrine.

Consider:

1. “John Smith is the son of Robert Smith.”
2. “John Smith is the son of Robert Smith and Jane Smith who was born Jane Jones.”
3. “John Smith is the son of Robert Smith but he is not the son of Jane Smith.”

Statement 2 does not contradict statement 1, and statement 1 is not a denial of statement 2.
Statement 3, on the other hand, directly denies part of statement 2.

I think John Smith (and Robert Smith) would wish to have words with the author of statement 3, though they would not object to either 1 or 2.

 

[mackbrislawn]

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

Yes, popes can have opinions just like everyone else, and can differ from another pope’s opinions. Only when a pope speaks ex cathedra (a rare event) is the statement infallible and not opinion. And only world-wide ecumenical church councils are infallible.

 

[Reepicheep]

Of course. Do you think a Catholic writer who gets his paycheck from the church, and is planning on getting an Imprimatur/nihil obstat is going to come out and say “lol the church totally changed its position on slavery.”

So you reject out of hand the statements of any Catholic writer. Unless, presumably, they agree with you?

This document is very sympathetic to Catholicism, but it is sufficiently matter-of-fact that it is easy to see where the writer puts on “catholic goggles” and where he is simply reciting facts. Essentially the document reads like this:

Opinion: The church isn’t a duck. Lets look at its features.
According to source 1, the church walks like a duck.
According to source 2, the church quacks like a duck.
According to source 3, the church swims like a duck.
According to source 4, the church looks like a duck.
Conclusion: Its remarkable how duck-like the church is.

Hmm. You’ve already rejected the writings of Catholic authors as untrustworthy because they’re Catholic. So why should we accept your interpretation of this document?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Hmm. You’ve already rejected the writings of Catholic authors as untrustworthy because they’re Catholic. So why should we accept your interpretation of this document?

I was not suggesting that the writer was untrustworthy, just that in his venue and circumstances, the opinions he is allowed to express are limited.

I believe in my original post I suggested that you all take a look at it for yourselves.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The following is from a non -Catholic:

I mean, no one would deny that there were differing opinions in the church such that you can find anti-slavery writings. For example, Francisco de Jaca, and Epiphane de Moirans wrote and preached strong condemnations of the chattel slavery practised in Cuba in the 1680s. They were excommunicated for those writings and preachings, but it does prove that anti-slavery sentiment was “in the air.”

We could also point to Bartolomé de Albornoz who wrote a book condemning the slave trade called Arte de los Contractos which harshly condemned the slave trade. The book was put on the index prohibitorum librorum because of this, but still, it shows that at least some thinkers were opposed to slavery at the time.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Did you read this, from the document you posted?

this in no way impugns the infallibility of the Church. For in no case were the criteria met for a statement of the magisterium on slavery to be infallible.

The Council of Gangra says:

If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.

Anathema to him who persuades a slave to leave his master under pretence of religion.

(The link above goes to page 5 where the first quote is at the bottom. This second quote is at the top of page 6.)

You might be saying, “So what? There were a lot of councils.”

Before the holding of the Council of Chalcedon, in the Greek Church, the canons of several synods, which were held previously, were gathered into one collection and provided with continuous numbers, and such a collection of canons, as we have seen, lay before the Synod of Chalcedon. As, however, most of the synods whose canons were received into the collection, e.g. those of Neo-

268

caesarea, Ancyra, Gangra, Antioch, were certainly not Ecumenical Councils, and were even to some extent of doubtful authority, such as the Antiochene Synod of 341, the confirmation of the Ecumenical Synod was now given to them, in order to raise them to the position of universally and unconditionally valid ecclesiastical rules. It is admirably remarked by the Emperor Justinian, in his 131st Novel, cap.j.; “We honour the doctrinal decrees of the first four Councils as we do Holy Scripture, but the canons given or approved by them as we do the laws.” {emphasis mine}

The above quote is from the fourth Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon, which ratified the decisions made in the four aformentioned synods (including Gangra). As the Ecumenical Councils are said to teach infallibly, this means that not instructing a slave to flee his master under pretense of religion is also infallible according to the Church.

 

[Duane1966]

The Council of Gangra says:

(The link above goes to page 5 where the first quote is at the bottom. This second quote is at the top of page 6.)

You might be saying, “So what? There were a lot of councils.”

The above quote is from the fourth Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon, which ratified the decisions made in the four aformentioned synods (including Gangra). As the Ecumenical Councils are said to teach infallibly, this means that not instructing a slave to flee his master under pretense of religion is also infallible according to the Church.

What type of slavery is the Council of Gangra addressing? Is it forced servitude? Or is it indentured servitude, which was also called slavery from early history through the middle ages?