po18guy
Well-known member
If this happened, I would renounce Christianity, as God’s revealed truth does not change.
If the Church reconsidered its teachings on certain matters, would you change your lifestyles?
- Status
K
Kamaduck
Guest
I agree with the people who say they would find another church. I have to seek the truth, wherever it leads me. I believe that the Catholic Church has the truth. If it suddenly became glaringly obvious that it didn’t, I would have to leave.
Luckily, this won’t ever happen, since the Catholic Church does have the truth, and truth is unchanging.
Luckily, this won’t ever happen, since the Catholic Church does have the truth, and truth is unchanging.
L
Lapey
Guest
LIKE^^^I agree with the people who say they would find another church. I have to seek the truth, wherever it leads me. I believe that the Catholic Church has the truth. If it suddenly became glaringly obvious that it didn’t, I would have to leave.
Luckily, this won’t ever happen, since the Catholic Church does have the truth, and truth is unchanging.
Who said this site has no “LIKE” button?
G
GEddie
Guest
Moral prohibitions by the Church are not there just to take away people’s fun; they are prohibitions of things that we as human beings oughtn’t be doing anyhow. No one is benefitted by adultery, fornication, drunkenness, etc.
(I imagine the OP referred to issues of individual morality – rules that affect how we live life – rather than rules concerning the priesthood or liturgical rubrics, which for the most do not.)
So if SOMEHOW the Church leadership were to lose its collective spine and take a permissive stance on morality (it won’t happen, but still)… my life would not change in any way.
ICXC NIKA
(I imagine the OP referred to issues of individual morality – rules that affect how we live life – rather than rules concerning the priesthood or liturgical rubrics, which for the most do not.)
So if SOMEHOW the Church leadership were to lose its collective spine and take a permissive stance on morality (it won’t happen, but still)… my life would not change in any way.
ICXC NIKA
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
No. Because part of me would hold out hope that there was some way to explain that it didn’t really happen, because of the logical problems such happening would cause. Although another part of me would be really struggling with nihilism, and might give in depending on how successful the first part is.
As has been said, moral laws are not there just to stop us from doing what we want to do, but to guide us into being as we are meant to be. Which means that “making more things permissible” would simply be less guidance, but as how we are meant to be would not change, what we should actually do - whether we are told so or not - cannot change. If I were convinced that it was not fixed, this would be the same as being convinced that no standard exists, and figuring out what to do about the particular thing that was changed would be the least of my problems.
Chances are the only noticeable immediate external change would be that I’d probably play video games even more often. Because explosions are cool, and a nice distraction from really annoying things.
D
donna369
Guest
i love a “what if” or “just suppose” question; especially when it is so far out of possibility that it’s practicaly moot anyway.
if i knew absolutely, as Pape is infallible, i would have to accept the Church’s decision. would i change my behavior; it really depends on what it is. if it was in the form of how we express our love to God, most likely. in my personal lifestyle, well a lot of what we do in our private lives is up to us and i doubt there is much in my personal expression of faith that would change. multiple sex partners, no; that would be a scary mess.fasting, maybe. but really i just love God being His constant self who has set the rules to help not hinder us.
but if something would bring me closer to Him, i would most defenitely be interested in it.
if i knew absolutely, as Pape is infallible, i would have to accept the Church’s decision. would i change my behavior; it really depends on what it is. if it was in the form of how we express our love to God, most likely. in my personal lifestyle, well a lot of what we do in our private lives is up to us and i doubt there is much in my personal expression of faith that would change. multiple sex partners, no; that would be a scary mess.fasting, maybe. but really i just love God being His constant self who has set the rules to help not hinder us.
but if something would bring me closer to Him, i would most defenitely be interested in it.
U
underacloud
Guest
I’m happy to play “what if?”
Re sex outside of marriage. If the Church suddenly allowed it, it would not change my view or practices. Being married, I understand how sex between husband and wife is a wonderful intimacy that finds its proper meaning in the context of marriage. Sex outside of marriage leads to jealousy, selfishness, and reduced intimacy when you finally settle down (not to mention unplanned/unwanted pregnancies). There are excellent reasons for this teaching and it’s a shame secular society fails to understand them.
Re contraception. If the Church allowed it, I would probably use it (putting aside for sake of discussion the issue of potentially abortifacient contraception; let’s say barrier methods). This is a teaching that my wife and I have struggled to understand at times, but follow. That said, if we had used ABC earlier in the marriage, we would almost certainly not have the four wonderful children that we have now, so I’d still say that following the Church’s teaching on this has been a blessing for us. So looking back I wouldn’t change anything, but looking forward, I probably would.
So to answer the fundamental question, yes, I follow the Church’s teachings “blindly”. But equally, I always try to understand them.
To continue exploring hypotheticals: if somehow any of these teaching were to “change”, my faith would indeed be shaken. It would be very diffiult to understand. How could the Church which speaks infallibly on faith and morals change a doctrine? But I would nonetheless be faced with an inescapable problem, which Simon Peter spoke: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” For me, it’s the Catholic Church or nothing.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Yes; I would become an Orthodox Jew.
If the Church were to change its stand on the moral teachings given by the Apostles of Jesus Christ, then the only explanation would be that the Holy Spirit does not protect the Church; if the Holy Spirit doesn’t protect the Church, what that means is that Christ was an exceptionally successful fraud, and that Christianity is a false and idolatrous religion.
J
joshvanrad
Guest
This was one of the many directions my head was going.Yes; I would become an Orthodox Jew.
If the Church were to change its stand on the moral teachings given by the Apostles of Jesus Christ, then the only explanation would be that the Holy Spirit does not protect the Church; if the Holy Spirit doesn’t protect the Church, what that means is that Christ was an exceptionally successful fraud, and that Christianity is a false and idolatrous religion.
This question tied my brain in knots trying to make sense of the very notion of it. It is like what I know vs. what I know. x/0= does not compute. Malfunction. Malfunction. Blue screen of death. beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep…
K
Kamaduck
Guest
Yes, it would be hard to make sense of. I think I’d go back to being a non-denominational Christian, although the very thought of that makes me itch. I don’t think I would leave Christianity, I’d just determine that the Catholic Church wasn’t THE church that Christ established.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Your examples are silly. That is like saying the Church would say that Jesus never existed. It isn’t that the Church wouldn’t. IT is that it cannot. You should know that. But on teachings it CAN change. I would think about it. We still go meatless on Fridays and such. It would just depend. But if the Church said we could have abortions, slaves, and kill our parents. I probably would not. Because that church would be false.
Out of curiosity why did you choose the examples you chose? Are you unaware of the theology of why those were very bad examples? They are bad because the Church does not have the power to change them. Pick something the Church has the power to change. Priestly celebacy etc. Don’t pick something that is as absurd as something the Church cannot do.
Just because Rome falls into heresy and sin it does not mean that the Catholic Church is false.
I reiterate:
We have had severely sinful popes in the past (some even committed fornication). It is possible for a pope to promote/engage sinful activity. He is not infallible in everything that he says or does. The pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra concerning doctrine and morals. Popes can preach, teach, and write without ever speaking ex cathedra. Most popes have never spoken ex cathedra.
Even if a pope falls, the gates of hell will not prevail.
I reiterate:
We have had severely sinful popes in the past (some even committed fornication). It is possible for a pope to promote/engage sinful activity. He is not infallible in everything that he says or does. The pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra concerning doctrine and morals. Popes can preach, teach, and write without ever speaking ex cathedra. Most popes have never spoken ex cathedra.
Even if a pope falls, the gates of hell will not prevail.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
With the examples chosen, making those things permissible means that one could also continue on their merry way same as before – i.e. not doing those things. That’s what I would do. 
Even when I had my doubts about Catholicism, I still always agreed with Catholic moral teaching on sex (I know, I’m backwards from most people 
).
But yeah, even though I wouldn’t follow that green light out into the dangerous intersection, it would still be a crisis of faith to see the Catholic Church change a fundamental moral teaching. It’s a good thing that will never happen.
Even when I had my doubts about Catholicism, I still always agreed with Catholic moral teaching on sex (I know, I’m backwards from most people ).But yeah, even though I wouldn’t follow that green light out into the dangerous intersection, it would still be a crisis of faith to see the Catholic Church change a fundamental moral teaching. It’s a good thing that will never happen.
T
TK421
Guest
If this logically incoherent scenario happened I would:
A) Have a spiritual meltdown
B) Probably sadly drift back into protestantism, plagued by doubt for the rest of my life.
I don’t have a quote at hand, but Pope John Paul II the Great addressed this by saying that if the Church should ever revoke its view on contraception [note: or any other doctrine], then it would be an admission that the protestants were right, and the entire Catholic Church would collapse.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Why would you do that? Jews don’t believe that Gentiles need to become Jews in order to please God. This is why they do not proselytize. A ger toshav (righteous Gentile) need only to avoid idolatry or blasphemy, but worship the true God only, and to observe the Noahite laws. It is not necessary to be circumcised or convert.Yes; I would become an Orthodox Jew.
If the Church were to change its stand on the moral teachings given by the Apostles of Jesus Christ, then the only explanation would be that the Holy Spirit does not protect the Church; if the Holy Spirit doesn’t protect the Church, what that means is that Christ was an exceptionally successful fraud, and that Christianity is a false and idolatrous religion.
T
Tucek1014
Guest
Absolutely not. There are so many natural laws that changing the teaching would break. I couldn’t live contrary to the very nature God created and follow the Church outside of that. I don’t live according to the teachings because they tell me to, I live by them because they are the way, the truth and the life.
H
holyrood
Guest
I confess I’m a little suspicious of motives when someone with two whole posts poses a question like this on a Catholic forum. What is the point: that if we would change then we’re guilty of blindly following the Pope and Church, and if we wouldn’t, then we’re guilty of thinking we know better than the Pope and Church, contrary to our own stated principles?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
We can be assured that dogma/doctrine are inspired by the Holy Spirit and can’t ‘change’. However, doctrine, over time, can develop and unfold. If there was consensus among the Church leaders and theologians *that I respect and trust *ie. prayful, humble and obedient men, I would submit to the Church’s teachings, whilst teasing out my concerns through questions and discussion. I’ve learned over time that my conscience cannot rest except in the absolute truth of something, so even if it were to take a lifetime of trying to understand, I would hope to juggle obedience to the Church and obedience to my conscience in a healthy and godly way.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The one and only thing that would cast me into the sea to search for Truth, would be if the Church rescinded or compromised on the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I couldn’t cope with that. Once you’ve loved Jesus in the sacrament of Eucharist, you can never accept anything else at Mass than His real presence.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I was the same, actually. We did NFP from the start of our marriage, but I didn’t become Catholic until much later - and my husband is still Protestant. I have always believed in the sacredness of marriage.With the examples chosen, making those things permissible means that one could also continue on their merry way same as before – i.e. not doing those things. That’s what I would do.
- Status