YinYangMom,
Except that’s not the real topic at hand, instead it is their disillusionment with the Church. … vent about the Church changing positions over time
I see. That clarifies the issue a bit. What never-changing Church do they attend? Next time they vent about the Church changing positions over time, ask them why they assert that the Bible only has 66 books in it when the 15th century Ecumenical Council of Florence, over a century prior to Protestantism, declared the Bible to have 73-books, the same books declared to be the Bible in AD 382 by Pope Damasus. By what authority do they make such an assertion? Protestant doctrine regarding soteriology (faith alone) and authority (Bible alone) cannot be found in the Bible, and did not exist prior to the Protestant Reformation, whereas every *de fide *dogma of Catholicism was taught clearly in the first 1000 years of Christianity.
What appears to the non-Catholics as doctrinal change, is understood by Catholics as doctrinal development. The doctrine of the Trinity is the classic example. There are many Protestants who reject that Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father.” They reject this doctrine because it is not found in Scripture and it opposes their personal modern interpretation of Scritpure. They are right. It is nowhere found *explicitly *in Scripture, and depending upon their personal interpretation of Scripture, it may very well oppose there modern views.
Nonetheless, the Catholic Church declared at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century that the doctrine of Eternal Sonship was part of the orthodox faith. The majority of Protestants accept it, appearantly agreeing with the Church that it was implicit in what was taught by the apostles in the first century. The Church’s understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, in other words, *developed over time. *It was part of the deposit of faith that Jesus was “eternally begotten of the Father”, yet it was only
implicit in what the apostles’ handed on. If it were
explicit in apostolic teaching, it’s doubtful that any opposing dispute would have taken hold of the Church and lasted as long and as wide spread as was Arianism. Thus, even some Protestants assert that our understanding of apostolic doctrine can develop, and consequently would never characterize such development as a “change” in apostolic teaching.
Before the doctrine that Jesus was “eternally begotten of the Father” was made *de fide definita *(infallibly defined as a doctrine of faith that must be held by all the faithful), the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ was indeed taught by the Church, but there were also many opposing viewpoints that were heterodox, but not formally heretical. Once the Church makes a judgment against a theolocial opinion that was up to that time merely tolerated, it can be no longer considered among the field of free opinions for a faithful Catholic.
Abortion is not a matter of free opinion for Catholics, and never has been. From the very earliest documents of the Church (Letter of Barnabas, Didache, etc), it was condemned. On the other hand, only some ensoulment theories have been condemend by the Church, while other contradictory theories can be held freely. There is no
de fide definita regarding the various doctrines of ensoulment, and there
never has been. Therefore, like the time prior to the *de fide definita *declaration regarding the Eternal Sonship of Chrst, various viewpoints can still be held that may be considered heterodox, but not formally heretical. That, in my opinion, is not the Church changing a mind it had already made up with absolute certainty (as with abortion), but is more a case of the Church growing in understanding of the one deposit of faith handed on by the apostles.
