If the impossible happened

[Seamus_L]

A number of Popes and Saints have spoken on matters very similar to this. We would do well to pay attention to there warnings.

 

[shelby_sun]

It is impossible for the Church to contradict Herself in any substantial way and still remain the infallible Church. For instance the Church cannot in one age say that Communicatio in sacris (that is taking active participation in worship with non-Catholics) is a mortal sin against Divine Law and the 1st Commandment of God and then in another age say that it is allowable and even desirable and that it is no sin at all. That would be an absurdity; it would be equivalent to saying that 2+2=4 on Monday, but equals 5 on Friday.

So if something of this nature ever occurred or if the Church allowed public adulterers to receive the Holy Eucharist as you are talking about, then I think the authority of those promulgating those contradictions would have to be questioned.

Thank God nothing like that has ever happened yet.

The Church as a whole is not infallible. It has certain teachings and dogma that are infallible, but even the Church itself does not claim to be infallible. That word gets overused.

 

[Teelynn]

If it happened, I would remain faithful. I converted a few years ago, because I believe in objective truth. So, during my conversion, I asked myself this very question. If the leaders of the Church changed doctrine to suit the sentiments of the modern age, then I would know the End is truly nigh, and I would live a life of penance, waiting for Christ to return in glory, enduring whatever tribulation or chastisement that was to come first. Nothing else would matter to me at that point except to be faithful to the objective truth that I found in the teachings of the Church at my conversion. I would view the leaders as apostates, however. Many of the saints have said that a worldwide apostasy will happen, all the way up to the Pope. So many Catholics are already anticipating that as a possibility in the modern world.

I do believe you are correct on this. I will have to go back and look at the messages of Our Lady of Fatima, I seem to recall something that she said to that respect there, but again, I would have to confirm. If something like this were to happen (I would be surprised if it indeed did happen) the Church would be split into different camps. I am not as worried about this happening as I am about the fallout from the upcoming Synod itself. Seems we may walk into the same kind of scenario as we did after Vat ll with Bishops either opposing or misinterpreting the outcome and acting according to their own beliefs. Either way, I do think it is something we need to pray about. This Synod is worrisome to me. The Church as a whole is not ready for something like this yet. Not solid enough IMO at this point in time.

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

The Church as a whole is not infallible. It has certain teachings and dogma that are infallible, but even the Church itself does not claim to be infallible. That word gets overused.

Oh I guess the infallible tag is overused. You are probably right.

How about Divine Law is that infallible or can it be changed?

What about the 1st Commandment, is that infallible or can that be changed as well?

Is God immutable or can something divinely revealed as a sin in one era somehow cease to be a sin in a subsequent era? Is that something that any human has the authority to change?

I’m Confused. If the Church is not infallible and can teach error, then what’s the point of being Catholic?

 

[shelby_sun]

Oh I guess the infallible tag is overused. You are probably right.

How about Divine Law is that infallible or can it be changed?

What about the 1st Commandment, is that infallible or can that be changed as well?

Is God immutable or can something divinely revealed as a sin in one era somehow cease to be a sin in a subsequent era? Is that something that any human has the authority to change?

I’m Confused. If the Church is not infallible and can teach error, then what’s the point of being Catholic?

Then maybe we should take to a priest.

 

[dshix]

The Church as a whole is not infallible. It has certain teachings and dogma that are infallible, but even the Church itself does not claim to be infallible. That word gets overused.

What do you mean by the distinction? When we say “the Church is infallible” we mean that it’s doctrines are infallible. I’ve never seen someone understand that to mean something else.

Now what would be wrong is if we said the Church is inerrant. That is not true because the Church is composed of men.

But it is not incorrect to say the Church is infallible.

 

[thistle]

The Church as a whole is not infallible. It has certain teachings and dogma that are infallible, but even the Church itself does not claim to be infallible. That word gets overused.

It IS IMPOSSIBLE for a doctrine that the Church has taught infallibly to be changed.
There are no if’s, but’s or maybe’s. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

It IS IMPOSSIBLE for a doctrine that the Church has taught infallibly to be changed.
There are no if’s, but’s or maybe’s. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

Thank you Thisle for that reply. So is Communicatio in sacris (taking active participation in worship with non-Catholics) a doctrine that was infallibly taught by the Church? If so when was it changed because now we see all sorts of ecumenical services in which Bishops and even Popes participate in. Is that one of the changes that was brought about by Vatican II? Is this related to Divine Law and the 1st Commandment?

 

[shelby_sun]

OK let me put it this way. When God sent Jesus to die for us (Jews) at that time, so we could be saved, that went against what Jews thought His plan was for them, God’s chosen people, as stated in the OT. Some obeyed and followed Chris as God’s son and our savior, some did not and remained Jews, loyal to the God they had always worshiped and to the Commandments He gave them.

So if with the second coming of Christ, Jesus tell us things that are different than the teachings or dogma of the Catholic Church, will you trust in Christ or stay with the Church, as the Jews stayed with theirs?

 

[thistle]

Thank you Thisle for that reply. So is Communicatio in sacris (taking active participation in worship with non-Catholics) a doctrine that was infallibly taught by the Church? If so when was it changed because now we see all sorts of ecumenical services in which Bishops and even Popes participate in. Is that one of the changes that was brought about by Vatican II? Is this related to Divine Law and the 1st Commandment?

I am allowed to attend a baptism, wedding or funeral at, say, a Methodist Church. I am allowed to (but not recommended) to attend a worship service there. I am forbidden (would be a sin of grave matter) to participate in anything in that worship service that contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church, e.g. receiving Communion there would be a sin of grave matter for me.

Can you you therefore be a bit more explicit with your example. Have you seen a Pope receiving Communion at a non-Catholic Christian service? Have you seen a non-Catholic receiving Communion at a Catholic Mass attended by the Pope?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Thank you Thisle for that reply. So is Communicatio in sacris (taking active participation in worship with non-Catholics) a doctrine that was infallibly taught by the Church? If so when was it changed because now we see all sorts of ecumenical services in which Bishops and even Popes participate in. Is that one of the changes that was brought about by Vatican II? Is this related to Divine Law and the 1st Commandment?

As long as you don’t contradict the faith–ie agreeing exteriorly or interiorly if a pastor were to say “oh the RC Church needs to ordain women!”–or make it appear as if you are in communion with them–ie accepting “communion” at a Lutheran church–then you are fine. This is what is absolutely forbidden.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I know that many have already stated that the Church cannot, so will not change its teachings on birth control, annulments, and gay marriages, but if the impossible happened in any of these issues, what would you do?

Would you leave the Church? Would you speak out against its new teachings. Would you stay and just going on living your life under the old teachings. Would you stay and support the Church and its teachings. Again I am not advocating for change in the Church.

I am so glad you asked this question. I was hoping you would. There have been times on other threads where someone points out that the Church is losing members because it won’t change it’s stance on ABor C. But my position is that if it did, it would lose SO many more members. I would be one of them. If the Church did the impossible, then I would have to do the unthinkable.

My wife and I were just discussing this. We were talking about how many people are all in a tizzy because of a conference later in the fall that there is a lot of rhetoric about. My wife said. “So what? So what if the Church said remarried are in communion.” My answer surprised her a little. I would flat out leave the Church. I could not continue to believe in something I deemed false. Jesus, God Himself, set up the Church and promised it would not fail us. If the Church changed the unchangeable. Marriage instituted by Jesus is unchangeable. I would leave.

But where would I go. If I just felt the Church was in error and there was a “Real” Church keeping Jesus’s promise alive, I would go there. Perhaps SSPX or the like. But more likely the outlook is more bleak. Going back on Jesus: Lunitic Liar or Lord type of thinking, I would conclude that we had been lied to. I may lose my faith altogether. But most certainly I would lose the Roman Catholic faith. This is hypothetical as pointed out in the OP and reminds me of a question in a theology class in college.

At the Beginning of the class. “If someone found the bones of Jesus in a grave, would you still be a Christian?” At the beginning of the class, a sizable majority, including me, said “yes” By the end of the year we almost all said “no.” Our understanding of what dogma is changed.

If the Church was proven false by any of the above claims, then I would have to dismiss the whole Church as false.

If the Church dug up Mary’s body and changed the teaching of assumption, I would leave. If the Church said, the Eucharist is symbolic only, I would leave. Unchangeable Dogma is a deal breaker for me. No matter if it is something as far away from my personal life as divorced and remarried receiving the Eucharist, or a woman priest. I would be gone.

The Question is if I would even believe in God anymore? Perhaps, perhaps I could be swayed by those who claim to be the “true” remnant of the Catholic faith.

But luckily, since it is already acknowledged to be impossible, I will never have to decide what to do.

 

[Lormar]

I am so glad you asked this question. I was hoping you would. There have been times on other threads where someone points out that the Church is losing members because it won’t change it’s stance on ABor C. But my position is that if it did, it would lose SO many more members. I would be one of them. If the Church did the impossible, then I would have to do the unthinkable.

My wife and I were just discussing this. We were talking about how many people are all in a tizzy because of a conference later in the fall that there is a lot of rhetoric about. My wife said. “So what? So what if the Church said remarried are in communion.” My answer surprised her a little. I would flat out leave the Church. I could not continue to believe in something I deemed false. Jesus, God Himself, set up the Church and promised it would not fail us. If the Church changed the unchangeable. Marriage instituted by Jesus is unchangeable. I would leave.

But where would I go. If I just felt the Church was in error and there was a “Real” Church keeping Jesus’s promise alive, I would go there. Perhaps SSPX or the like. But more likely the outlook is more bleak. Going back on Jesus: Lunitic Liar or Lord type of thinking, I would conclude that we had been lied to. I may lose my faith altogether. But most certainly I would lose the Roman Catholic faith. This is hypothetical as pointed out in the OP and reminds me of a question in a theology class in college.

At the Beginning of the class. “If someone found the bones of Jesus in a grave, would you still be a Christian?” At the beginning of the class, a sizable majority, including me, said “yes” By the end of the year we almost all said “no.” Our understanding of what dogma is changed.

If the Church was proven false by any of the above claims, then I would have to dismiss the whole Church as false.

If the Church dug up Mary’s body and changed the teaching of assumption, I would leave. If the Church said, the Eucharist is symbolic only, I would leave. Unchangeable Dogma is a deal breaker for me. No matter if it is something as far away from my personal life as divorced and remarried receiving the Eucharist, or a woman priest. I would be gone.

The Question is if I would even believe in God anymore? Perhaps, perhaps I could be swayed by those who claim to be the “true” remnant of the Catholic faith.

But luckily, since it is already acknowledged to be impossible, I will never have to decide what to do.

Many of the prophecies have said that things would get so bad that all would appear lost. Think of the gentlemen on the road to Emmaus. They had hoped that Jesus was their messiah, and their hopes were seemingly dashed and over. But the prophecies go on to say that when all would appear to be lost, then Our Lord will intervene.

It won’t surprise me if things get that bad in the Church. If everything does get that bad, I pray that even then I will still believe.

 

[shelby_sun]

I am so glad you asked this question. I was hoping you would. There have been times on other threads where someone points out that the Church is losing members because it won’t change it’s stance on ABor C. But my position is that if it did, it would lose SO many more members. I would be one of them. If the Church did the impossible, then I would have to do the unthinkable.

My wife and I were just discussing this. We were talking about how many people are all in a tizzy because of a conference later in the fall that there is a lot of rhetoric about. My wife said. “So what? So what if the Church said remarried are in communion.” My answer surprised her a little. I would flat out leave the Church. I could not continue to believe in something I deemed false. Jesus, God Himself, set up the Church and promised it would not fail us. If the Church changed the unchangeable. Marriage instituted by Jesus is unchangeable. I would leave.

But where would I go. If I just felt the Church was in error and there was a “Real” Church keeping Jesus’s promise alive, I would go there. Perhaps SSPX or the like. But more likely the outlook is more bleak. Going back on Jesus: Lunitic Liar or Lord type of thinking, I would conclude that we had been lied to. I may lose my faith altogether. But most certainly I would lose the Roman Catholic faith. This is hypothetical as pointed out in the OP and reminds me of a question in a theology class in college.

At the Beginning of the class. “If someone found the bones of Jesus in a grave, would you still be a Christian?” At the beginning of the class, a sizable majority, including me, said “yes” By the end of the year we almost all said “no.” Our understanding of what dogma is changed.

If the Church was proven false by any of the above claims, then I would have to dismiss the whole Church as false.

If the Church dug up Mary’s body and changed the teaching of assumption, I would leave. If the Church said, the Eucharist is symbolic only, I would leave. Unchangeable Dogma is a deal breaker for me. No matter if it is something as far away from my personal life as divorced and remarried receiving the Eucharist, or a woman priest. I would be gone.

The Question is if I would even believe in God anymore? Perhaps, perhaps I could be swayed by those who claim to be the “true” remnant of the Catholic faith.

But luckily, since it is already acknowledged to be impossible, I will never have to decide what to do.

After what you have said, it sounds like (to me) that if you were a faithful Jew back when Jesus came to earth, you would have never be a Christian at all. And if we believe loyalty to God, why are Jews seen as wrong for not following Jesus, as our Savior?

Thank you for your answer, it was clear and honest.

 

[JimG]

Jesus was a Rabbi. He spent a good deal of time making it clear to his people that he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies.

I’ve also read that in the years following the resurrection, a great many Jews did become Christian. (Beginning, of course, with the apostles and the original Jewish disciples.)

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

OK let me put it this way. When God sent Jesus to die for us (Jews) at that time, so we could be saved, that went against what Jews thought His plan was for them, God’s chosen people, as stated in the OT. Some obeyed and followed Chris as God’s son and our savior, some did not and remained Jews, loyal to the God they had always worshiped and to the Commandments He gave them.

So if with the second coming of Christ, Jesus tell us things that are different than the teachings or dogma of the Catholic Church, will you trust in Christ or stay with the Church, as the Jews stayed with theirs?

Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against Her, so how could His Church, which is infallible in Faith and morals, teach something contradictory to what Christ taught?

Also, I believe the 10 Commandments are still intact. Our Blessed Lord did not to rescind the 10 Commandments that I know of. They are still used as a guide for our examination of conscience for when we receive sacramental confession.

Is this true?

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

I am allowed to attend a baptism, wedding or funeral at, say, a Methodist Church. I am allowed to (but not recommended) to attend a worship service there. I am forbidden (would be a sin of grave matter) to participate in anything in that worship service that contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church, e.g. receiving Communion there would be a sin of grave matter for me.

Thank you for your reply Thistle. So then Catholics are now allowed to attend the services of Methodists, Baptists etc. so long as they don’t receive communion? That has definitely changed since Vatican II then, because I’m pretty sure that participation in the worship of non-Catholics was strictly forbidden before that time. I know that people were allowed to passively attend a wedding or funeral of a non-Catholic in order to not offend family members or maybe a close friend or out of some civic duty, but that was the only exception that I know of.

Can you you therefore be a bit more explicit with your example. Have you seen a Pope receiving Communion at a non-Catholic Christian service? Have you seen a non-Catholic receiving Communion at a Catholic Mass attended by the Pope?

Oh no, I have never seen a Pope receive communion at a non-Catholic service. I have read about and seen a picture of a Pope giving communion to a non-Catholic although I am not sure about the accuracy of the report. It was reported that at Saint John Paul II’s funeral Mass that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave Holy Communion to Brother Roger Schutz, who was a minister of the Swiss Reformed Church and founder of the Taize community which was some kind of Protestant monastery as I understand it. But I guess technically Cardinal Ratzinger was not actually the Pope yet.

But then there are the three Assisi meetings that took place where all of these leaders of non-Catholic and even some pagan religions were invited to pray together for world peace. Isn’t that Communicato in sacris? If you pray with someone isn’t that worshiping with them?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

After what you have said, it sounds like (to me) that if you were a faithful Jew back when Jesus came to earth, you would have never be a Christian at all. And if we believe loyalty to God, why are Jews seen as wrong for not following Jesus, as our Savior?

Thank you for your answer, it was clear and honest.

No, that is not true, you are misunderstanding a couple of things.

1. Jesus was fulfilling a prophesy. One God made from the fall of man to Jesus’s time. He was the messiah.
2. He performed miracles. He rose again and he never lied about anything. Not only did the Jews have the prophesies, but they also had eyes to witness and hear miracles. If the afore mentioned impossibilities came with some sort of Thomas proof like miracle, then I would accept them.
3. The Church has said that public revelation is closed. That is it. Dogma cannot change, it can be expanded upon.

Jesus did not say the gates of hell will not prevail and the Truths will change to suit a few bishops, or to suit a society that legalizes gay marriage. In fact, the Church has held it’s beliefs in the face of death. OF schism, and of more morally confusing times than this. Jesus did not imply that when a certain king wanted to challenge the marriage views of the Church and so took with him MILLIONS of people out of the Church. That the Church would bend.
She has always existed. She has never gone contrary to the Truth of God. And she has been persecuted far beyond anything we currently see. For the first 300 years Her members died because of inconvenient Truths they would not change. IF I had see God, heard God, Touched God, then I would have believed in God. If I had just been a Jew, but this religion supported the prophesies of the messiah, I would have been “Christian” You must remember that even the first “Christians” likely considered themselves Jews.

I do wonder even though you said it was impossible if you are being coy and think that what some THINK is unchangeable can be changeable. That is just not true. Your point about VII shows that there may be a disconnect between what you think is a comparable situation. Believe it or not, some things the Church cannot change.

To make this scenario clearer instead of using all the modern ideas of “Change” just stick with basic ones.

Who would remain if the Church said" “Mary was not assumed, and she sinned.”
“Or the bread and wine is not Jesus”
Or
Jesus died and only his soul was resurrected.
Or that he is not God.
When you start omitting parts of the Nicene creed you start losing members.

That is why these emotional or political issues are clouded for most. Those that say they would stay, or that it could happen, are not really thinking it through.

On a personal note, I have followed your posts. I know you views, even if you cannot express them clearly on CAF per the rules. And I wonder, if you believe the Church is in error, how can you believe at all?

 

[TMC]

Here at CAF I see Catholics making these extreme statements to the effect that this or that would be the “end of the Church” or “impossible,” and I wonder if people really mean these hyperbolic statements. I find those statements to be both extreme and ahistorical. The Church has changed its teachings on various issues over the centuries and many of those changes are a lot more significant (in my view) than the changes at issue on this thread. Does anyone think that the changes to the Church’s interpretation of EENS are less significant than changing the rules on annulments? Or that the changes to the teachings on basic human rights issues like slavery and freedom of religion are less significant than changing some of the teaching on the acceptable forms of birth control?

The Church grows and changes like any other entity. Doctrines have changed (or “evolved” if you prefer) in the past, and I am sure they will continue to do so in the future. I suppose that one is free to believe that every little change is the end of the world; but I don’t think that is a very Catholic way to look at things.

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

Here at CAF I see Catholics making these extreme statements to the effect that this or that would be the “end of the Church” or “impossible,” and I wonder if people really mean these hyperbolic statements. I find those statements to be both extreme and ahistorical. The Church has changed its teachings on various issues over the centuries and many of those changes are a lot more significant (in my view) than the changes at issue on this thread. Does anyone think that the changes to the Church’s interpretation of EENS are less significant than changing the rules on annulments? Or that the changes to the teachings on basic human rights issues like slavery and freedom of religion are less significant than changing some of the teaching on the acceptable forms of birth control?

The Church grows and changes like any other entity. Doctrines have changed (or “evolved” if you prefer) in the past, and I am sure they will continue to do so in the future. I suppose that one is free to believe that every little change is the end of the world; but I don’t think that is a very Catholic way to look at things.

So you are saying that Catholic dogma has been changed and can be changed?

Is there anything that is “off the table” that **can’t ** be changed, and how do we reconcile these changes with the infallibility of the Church?

Is there is no dogma that is set such as the indissolubility of marriage or that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ and it is the exclusive means of salvation set apart from all others?

If everything is changeable and the Church can contradict Herself what does that say of objective truth? If there is no objective truth then it doesn’t matter what you believe. If there is objective truth then it cannot contradict itself.