If the impossible happened

[TMC]

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.

No, I am not saying that. There are presumably some things that the Church could not change, but my view is that it is a very short list. That is not to say that the Church should change things willy nilly, but that is also not what is happening here.

First off, I am not even sure that anything being discussed here is dogma. Some Church doctrines may be implicated, but I don’t think any dogmas are, and certainly no infallibly declared dogmas.

Moreover, it seems to me that the Church is actually discussing how to pastorally apply doctrine, which is yet another step away from any supposedly immutable, infallible dogma. For example, allowing the remarried to fully participate in the sacraments does not in any way change the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. I also don’t see that allowing additional forms of birth control would necessarily require changing the teaching on the purpose of the marital act (a teaching that is also not infallible dogma).

Compare that to some of the changes made in the past. The change we both pointed to, the changes to EENS, is probably the best example. For a long period of time, the Church taught that actual active membership in the earthly Church (and allegiance to the Bishop of Rome) was required for salvation. The Church no longer teaches that. Instead the Church teaches that all those that are saved are mystically connected to the Church. That is a pretty big change. Much, much bigger (in my view), than anything now on the table. Did the Church cease to exist? Of course not. Was the Church correct in making that change in teaching? I think so, because I think it advances the Church closer to the Truth.

That is the job of the Church (including the laity), and a special responsibility of the hierarchy - to move closer to the Truth. Should the Church not keep trying to do that?

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

No, I am not saying that. There are presumably some things that the Church could not change, but my view is that it is a very short list. That is not to say that the Church should change things willy nilly, but that is also not what is happening here.

First off, I am not even sure that anything being discussed here is dogma. Some Church doctrines may be implicated, but I don’t think any dogmas are, and certainly no infallibly declared dogmas.

Moreover, it seems to me that the Church is actually discussing how to pastorally apply doctrine, which is yet another step away from any supposedly immutable, infallible dogma. For example, allowing the remarried to fully participate in the sacraments does not in any way change the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. I also don’t see that allowing additional forms of birth control would necessarily require changing the teaching on the purpose of the marital act (a teaching that is also not infallible dogma).

Compare that to some of the changes made in the past. The change we both pointed to, the changes to EENS, is probably the best example. For a long period of time, the Church taught that actual active membership in the earthly Church (and allegiance to the Bishop of Rome) was required for salvation. The Church no longer teaches that. Instead the Church teaches that all those that are saved are mystically connected to the Church. That is a pretty big change. Much, much bigger (in my view), than anything now on the table. Did the Church cease to exist? Of course not. Was the Church correct in making that change in teaching? I think so, because I think it advances the Church closer to the Truth.

That is the job of the Church (including the laity), and a special responsibility of the hierarchy - to move closer to the Truth. Should the Church not keep trying to do that?

Hmmm. Thank you for that reply TMC. So you say that the Church needs to advance closer to the truth. I thought the Catholic Church claimed to have the Truth because it was instituted by Truth Himself for the salvation of all men and that the Church not only teaches and interprets the doctrines of Christ with divine authority but that it also possesses the gift of infallibility.

So it appears that we have a very fallible and imperfect Church, one that does not have the truth, but one that is striving and struggling to advance toward the truth. Also it is one that can change its core dogmas such as *Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus * as you said.

You don’t think that allowing those divorced and remarried outside the Church to receive the sacraments changes the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage? How is that?

Also you don’t think that allowing artificial means of birth control would necessarily require changing the teaching on the purpose of the marital act? But isn’t the very purpose of artificial birth control to subvert the purpose of the marital act?

 

[Megan7]

I wouldn’t do anything. Well, I would cease to exist, I would be annihilated, because if that were to happen, then the Church wouldn’t be indefectible, the Church wouldn’t be real, God wouldn’t keep his promises, therefore the whole human “experiment” would then not be able to have happened, therefore we would all have to retroactively not exist.

I have to read through all of this. Praying. Thanks.

 

[thistle]

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.

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?

What I said was that it is not a sin to attend a non-Catholic Christian worship service as long as you do not participate in anything during that service that contradicts Catholic Church teachings. I do not believe there was ever a doctrine that forbade a Catholic to be physically present at such a service.

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

What I said was that it is not a sin to attend a non-Catholic Christian worship service as long as you do not participate in anything during that service that contradicts Catholic Church teachings. I do not believe there was ever a doctrine that forbade a Catholic to be physically present at such a service.

OK I think I understand now. So I am a convert. I used to be Sothern Baptist. If I go to the Saturday PM Mass to fulfill my Sunday obligation, I can still go to my old Baptist Church on Sunday mornings because I like the hymns and the preacher so long as I don’t receive their “communion”?

 

[OraLabora]

Have you seen a non-Catholic receiving Communion at a Catholic Mass attended by the Pope?

Yes. Brother Roger Schutz, a Protestant and founder of Taizé, received Holy Communion from soon-to-be pope Benedict XVI at John Paul II’s funeral, and from John Paul II himself.

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

Yes. Brother Roger Schutz, a Protestant and founder of Taizé, received Holy Communion from soon-to-be pope Benedict XVI at John Paul II’s funeral, and from John Paul II himself.

So are non-Catholics allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist and the other sacraments? I thought the Eucharist was a symbol of unity and of the Mystical Body of Christ that through the Holy Eucharist Catholics are untied to Christ and to each other because we have the unity of Faith?

 

[OraLabora]

So are non-Catholics allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist and the other sacraments? I thought the Eucharist was a symbol of unity and of the Mystical Body of Christ that through the Holy Eucharist Catholics are untied to Christ and to each other because we have the unity of Faith?

As a general rule, no, non-Catholics cannot receive the Catholic Eucharist.

There are some exceptions though:

1. The Orthodox may do so as we share a common belief in the Real Presence; however it would be against his or her Church for the Orthodox do to so;

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

1. There are specific exceptions in Canon law for grave reasons:

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

One can argue whether in Br. Roger’s case the above applies. However the Pope has the authority to abrogate law in specific circumstances if required, as Pope Francis did when washing the feet of young women and Muslims on Holy Thursday.

 

[TMC]

Hmmm. Thank you for that reply TMC. So you say that the Church needs to advance closer to the truth. I thought the Catholic Church claimed to have the Truth because it was instituted by Truth Himself for the salvation of all men and that the Church not only teaches and interprets the doctrines of Christ with divine authority but that it also possesses the gift of infallibility.

Jesus told us that he was only giving us what we were ready to understand and that the Holy Spirit would guide us in further development. The Church teaches that is what is happening - doctrine is developing. As to infallibility, only a tiny portion of all Catholic teaching is “infallible,” and none of that is at issue here.

So it appears that we have a very fallible and imperfect Church, one that does not have the truth, but one that is striving and struggling to advance toward the truth. Also it is one that can change its core dogmas such as *Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus * as you said.

I would say that we are very fallible and imperfect people. The Church can obviously change some of its teachings, as it obviously has done so in the past. Do you think the Church stopped being the Church when it changed its teaching on EENS? Or any of the other changes in Church teaching?

You don’t think that allowing those divorced and remarried outside the Church to receive the sacraments changes the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage? How is that?

Of course not. The Church can change how it deals with the divorced without saying that it approves of divorce. Why do you think the Church cannot do that?

Also you don’t think that allowing artificial means of birth control would necessarily require changing the teaching on the purpose of the marital act? But isn’t the very purpose of artificial birth control to subvert the purpose of the marital act?

Again, of course the Church can change its teaching on this, and nearly did not so long ago. The Church already approves of some types of birth control as consistent with the purpose of the marital act. The Church could certainly acknowledge that other types of birth control are also consistent with the purpose of the act. Why do you think the Church cannot do that?

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

As a general rule, no, non-Catholics cannot receive the Catholic Eucharist.

There are some exceptions though:

1. The Orthodox may do so as we share a common belief in the Real Presence; however it would be against his or her Church for the Orthodox do to so;

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

Hmmm, the washing of feet on Maundy Thursday is not a sacrament. I suppose if the Pope wanted to change liturgical law to allow the washing of feet of women and those who deny the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity he could do so. To my knowledge Pope Francis did not change liturgical law, he just ignored it.

The Holy Eucharist however is one of the sacraments established by our Lord Jesus Christ. It seems that the new canon law is a change from the old code. The 1917 Code says in regard to giving the sacraments to non-Catholics:

Canon 731: §1.* As all the Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, are the principal means of sanctification and salvation, the greatest diligence and reverence is to be observed in opportunely and correctly administering them and receiving them. *

§2. It is forbidden that the sacraments of the Church be administered to heretics or schismatics, even if they ask for them in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.

So, if I am understanding this correctly under the old code one had to be reconciled with the Church (i.e., become Catholic or return to the Church) in order to receive the sacraments whereas now one only has to *manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments *. So then an Eastern Orthodox say, could receive the Holy Eucharist even though they deny the supremacy of the papacy or the Assumption of our Lady.

Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

Jesus told us that he was only giving us what we were ready to understand and that the Holy Spirit would guide us in further development. The Church teaches that is what is happening - doctrine is developing. As to infallibility, only a tiny portion of all Catholic teaching is “infallible,” and none of that is at issue here.

So you say there are very few infallible dogmas of the Church? When does the Church speak ex cathedra then? What is the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium and are these not infallible? What are some infallible dogmas of the Church? Can you name any?

I would say that we are very fallible and imperfect people. The Church can obviously change some of its teachings, as it obviously has done so in the past. Do you think the Church stopped being the Church when it changed its teaching on EENS? Or any of the other changes in Church teaching?

So then extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has never been an infallible doctrine of the Church? Is that what you are saying.

Again, of course the Church can change its teaching on this, and nearly did not so long ago. The Church already approves of some types of birth control as consistent with the purpose of the marital act. The Church could certainly acknowledge that other types of birth control are also consistent with the purpose of the act. Why do you think the Church cannot do that?

Well maybe my logic is off, but it seems to me that the ends of the two things are diametrically opposed to each other. The end or purpose of “birth control” is to prevent pregnancy and the birth of children. The end or purpose of the marital act is to cause pregnancy and the birth of children. Now if a married couple are performing the marital act while using birth control, then obviously it is not to the end for which the marital act exists, but for some other end. If the Church says that it is licit to use birth control then consequently it must redefine the purpose or end of the marital act to reconcile it to the purpose or end of birth control in order not to contradict Herself.

I am aware that NFP is allowable but it was suppose to be only under grave circumstances.

 

[shelby_sun]

Jesus told us that he was only giving us what we were ready to understand and that the Holy Spirit would guide us in further development. The Church teaches that is what is happening - doctrine is developing. As to infallibility, only a tiny portion of all Catholic teaching is “infallible,” and none of that is at issue here.

I would say that we are very fallible and imperfect people. The Church can obviously change some of its teachings, as it obviously has done so in the past. Do you think the Church stopped being the Church when it changed its teaching on EENS? Or any of the other changes in Church teaching?

Of course not. The Church can change how it deals with the divorced without saying that it approves of divorce. Why do you think the Church cannot do that?

Again, of course the Church can change its teaching on this, and nearly did not so long ago. The Church already approves of some types of birth control as consistent with the purpose of the marital act. The Church could certainly acknowledge that other types of birth control are also consistent with the purpose of the act. Why do you think the Church cannot do that?

Thank you for your post. I have come across others who get quite aggressive in their defense of the Church and everything it has ever done as infallible, and I get so worn out from the discussion I stop. I am glad there are others that have a clearer understanding of the Church and its history, and do not lose faith on :thumbsup:the mere thought of the Church looking into how they handle non dogmas these days.

 

[thistle]

Jesus told us that he was only giving us what we were ready to understand and that the Holy Spirit would guide us in further development. The Church teaches that is what is happening - doctrine is developing. As to infallibility, only a tiny portion of all Catholic teaching is “infallible,” and none of that is at issue here.

I would say that we are very fallible and imperfect people. The Church can obviously change some of its teachings, as it obviously has done so in the past. Do you think the Church stopped being the Church when it changed its teaching on EENS? Or any of the other changes in Church teaching?

Of course not. The Church can change how it deals with the divorced without saying that it approves of divorce. Why do you think the Church cannot do that?

Again, of course the Church can change its teaching on this, and nearly did not so long ago. ** The Church already approves of some types of birth control as consistent with the purpose of the marital act. The Church could certainly acknowledge that other types of birth control are also consistent with the purpose of the act. Why do you think the Church cannot do that**?

Can you please cite some Church documents on this. I do not believe this at all.

ALL forms of artificial birth control are forbidden if the primary purpose is to prevent pregnancy. That has not changed.

 

[Abu]

TMC #50
The Church can obviously change some of its teachings, as it obviously has done so in the past.
The Church already approves of some types of birth control as consistent with the purpose of the marital act. The Church could certainly acknowledge that other types of birth control are also consistent with the purpose of the act.

False – the Church never contradicts Her dogma nor doctrine, and does not approve of contraception.

shelby sun $53
I am glad there are others that have a clearer understanding of the Church and its history, and do not lose faith on the mere thought of the Church looking into how they handle non dogmas these days.

The understanding of TMC as expressed here is as clear as mud.

Doctrine can develop without contradiction and no one can produce any facts otherwise.

 

[TMC]

So you say there are very few infallible dogmas of the Church? When does the Church speak ex cathedra then? What is the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium and are these not infallible? What are some infallible dogmas of the Church? Can you name any?

The Church has never seen fit to publish a list of the teachings that the Church considers infallible (or not). I believe that there are few, if any, outside of the Creed, although I believe that most Catholics would add some of the Marian teachings to that list, and maybe one or two other things. Given that the Church declines to publish a list, I am not sure that it makes much sense for any of us to try to do it ourselves.

So then extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has never been an infallible doctrine of the Church? Is that what you are saying.

No, not at all. I made no judgment as to whether EENS is infallible or not, but it is certainly an important teaching. My point is that the meaning of EENS has changed quite significantly over the centuries. Do you disagree? Given that such a significant teaching has changed without the Church coming crashing down, why would changing the less significant teachings at issue on this thread be impossible or destroy the Church? That is my point.

Well maybe my logic is off, but it seems to me that the ends of the two things are diametrically opposed to each other. The end or purpose of “birth control” is to prevent pregnancy and the birth of children. The end or purpose of the marital act is to cause pregnancy and the birth of children. Now if a married couple are performing the marital act while using birth control, then obviously it is not to the end for which the marital act exists, but for some other end. If the Church says that it is licit to use birth control then consequently it must redefine the purpose or end of the marital act to reconcile it to the purpose or end of birth control in order not to contradict Herself.

I am aware that NFP is allowable but it was suppose to be only under grave circumstances.

I guess we have a different view of what the Church teaches as to the marital act. I don’t agree that the sole end or purpose of the marital act is to cause pregnancy. I don’t think the Church teaches that either, or else why would NFP be OK, why would sex after menopause be OK, etc. The Church approves one form of birth control - NFP. The Church could certainly approve others. I am not saying the Church is about to do so, but I do think it would be possible and would not result in the catastrophic end of the Church.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I guess we have a different view of what the Church teaches as to the marital act. I don’t agree that the sole end or purpose of the marital act is to cause pregnancy. I don’t think the Church teaches that either, or else why would NFP be OK, why would sex after menopause be OK, etc. The Church approves one form of birth control - NFP. The Church could certainly approve others. I am not saying the Church is about to do so, but I do think it would be possible and would not result in the catastrophic end of the Church.

Could you give an example of a form of Birth Control you think the Church could approve?

 

[TMC]

Could you give an example of a form of Birth Control you think the Church could approve?

I think the Church could approve any form of birth control.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think the Church could approve any form of birth control.

Oh, ok. thanks for clarifying.

 

[dshix]

I think the Church could approve any form of birth control.

Ha.

 

[shelby_sun]

Oh, ok. thanks for clarifying.

First, let me say I do not see the Church changing its teaching on this issue (nor am I saying it should), but since I am the OP, I will throw something out here.

The only thing I could come up with is that the Church would address those families who have children and believe, after searching their conscious, praying, and consulting a priest that they have fulfilled there openness to God’s gift of children, or that they for some reason should not have children due to some condition or illness, so they could follow their conscious on what birth control they use.

I cannot how many women I know that have turned to drinking over this very issue, whether it is because they are using artificial BC or because they are having more children then they planned. Now with so many Catholic marrying outside the church, so often their partners are not supportive of NFP.

Again, I am not saying the Church will change. I think the most they would ever do it tell people to search their conscious over their specific situation under guidance from a priest.
Again, my mother got pregnant with NFP which lead to enormous pain and destroyed us all. Now of course that was not the fault of the Church, but my mother was raising 4 children with a husband who travel ever week in a high level job, living on the other side of the country from any family. She had already moved numerous times all over the country. She had all her kids in Catholic school so studies were intense. None of these are excuses, but I don’t think every family situation can be dealt with exactly the same.

Again, I cannot think of anything that allows my husband and I to get closer physically, emotionally, spiritually, and mentally. To me God brings us together in every way possible, a very special way. When we planned it that just didn’t happen. I think anytime you can truly connect to your spouse that way, you are very lucky. However, I do understand what others our saying and what the Church is teaching and why. I don’t see anything changing.