Need resources showing Catholic Church has never changed

[Rejoice]

I’ve been talking with my friend about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular and I promised him I’d try to answer several of his objections. After some research a few of his questions remain unanswered to my satisfaction.

I’m posting each question individually. This is the second one:

2.) In what ways can the Church be shown to have not changed its teachings across 2,000 years of history? (preferably from a disinterested source)

Thank you!

Brett

 

[Eileen_T]

It would probably take years to research and answer this in detail. I remember being told an old saying "A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

I suggest that you recommend that your friend read the writings of the Early Church Fathers, especially those of the 1st & 2nd centuries since many Protestants claim the Catholic Church really had it’s origin in 312 A.D., after the conversion of Constantine. Also the Didache.

This site by Dave Armstrong could be helpful web.archive.org/web/20030604071746/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ429.HTM

 

[DeFide]

Rejoice:

I’ve been talking with my friend about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular and I promised him I’d try to answer several of his objections. After some research a few of his questions remain unanswered to my satisfaction.

I’m posting each question individually. This is the second one:

2.) In what ways can the Church be shown to have not changed its teachings across 2,000 years of history? (preferably from a disinterested source)

Thank you!

Brett

Be careful with language. The Church teaches truth. It’s teachings on faith and morals can develop as an acorn develops into a tree as questions are posed and answered, but the truth is never the opposite of what it once was. It’s OK to draw additional true conclusions from other truths.

As another analogy, as the lights are slowly brightened in a room, we can make out more and more of what’s there. The full content is there all the time, but we see it sequentially. But this does not allow for objects in the room to disappear.

To the meat of your question, I’d look at Catholic Answers’ tracts on specific topics that have quotes from early Church Fathers.

I’d also recommend Jimmy Akin’s old web page with comparitive Catechisms:

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/master2.htm

And the book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott might also be of interest.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, abortion was prohibited in the Didache (and that is from the time of the apostles) and is prohibited still in the Catholic church.

Birth control was prohibited from the time of Leviticus, and is prohibited still in the Catholic church.

The Trinity has existed (prefigured in the OT, touched on in the NT, and revealed in full depth by the 1st centuries, and it is still taught in the Catholic church (and most Christian churches).

The Real Presence has been taught since John 6 and continues to be taught in the Catholic Church.

Divorce has been prohibited by the words of Christ Himself, and is still prohibited in the Catholic Church.

Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom, and the papacy continues with apostolic succession to this day.

The breaking of the bread on Sunday, the Lord’s day, is seen in the epistles and spoken of by St. Irenius and the early church fathers, and Sunday is still the Lord’s day where we celebrate the Mass.

The Ten Commandments are still in force.

The basic dogmas of the Catholic Church are pretty much summed up in the Creed, which has existed in written form for about 1600 years, and can be scripturally authenticated back to the time of the apostles. . .they have not changed. Trinity, not Duo, Quarter, etc. Jesus the Son of God, onlybegotten. One catholic and apostolic church. The communion of saints. One baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus born of the Virgin Mary. A resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

Hope this helps. . .

 

[svoboda]

Rejoice:

I’ve been talking with my friend about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular and I promised him I’d try to answer several of his objections. After some research a few of his questions remain unanswered to my satisfaction.

I’m posting each question individually. This is the second one:

2.) In what ways can the Church be shown to have not changed its teachings across 2,000 years of history? (preferably from a disinterested source)

Thank you!

Brett

You will not find it because the Church has changed. Read Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

He was aware that doctrine developed (i.e. changed) quite significantly over the years. Initially it caused him to stay away from the Church because he thought Catholics corrupted the teachings of the apostles, later he found a way to view the changes as developments rather than corruptions.

But the changes are there, and I expect there will be still more changes over the years.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Development of a doctrine does not CHANGE the doctrine necessarily; surely you understand this?

Example: Here is a doctrine. Jesus is the Son of God. Now. . .with just those words, what do you understand by “son of God?” Do you understand Jesus to be equal to God? Do you think that only the Father originally existed, but NOT the Son?

The DEVELOPMENT of the doctrine–that Jesus is EQUAL to the Father and begotten of the Father before all ages–does NOT change the doctrine of “Jesuus is the Son of God.” Does it?

So, arguing that development must equal change is a FALLACY.

 

[svoboda]

Tantum ergo:

Development of a doctrine does not CHANGE the doctrine necessarily; surely you understand this?

Example: Here is a doctrine. Jesus is the Son of God. Now. . .with just those words, what do you understand by “son of God?” Do you understand Jesus to be equal to God? Do you think that only the Father originally existed, but NOT the Son?

The DEVELOPMENT of the doctrine–that Jesus is EQUAL to the Father and begotten of the Father before all ages–does NOT change the doctrine of “Jesuus is the Son of God.” Does it?

So, arguing that development must equal change is a FALLACY.

But going from teaching that non-Catholics will be damned to “developing” to teaching that even atheists may be saved is a change. Teaching about the unitive purposes of sex after teaching it was primarily procreative is also a real change. Teaching that some books should not be read and then abolishing the idea is a real change.

I expect there will be many more such changes in the future.

 

[mlchance]

svoboda:

But going from teaching that non-Catholics will be damned to “developing” to teaching that even atheists may be saved is a change. Teaching about the unitive purposes of sex after teaching it was primarily procreative is also a real change.

Neither of these is a change. Rather, they are strawmen. The Church has never taught that all non-Catholics will be damned, and the Church still teaches that atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion and “one of the most serious problems of our time.”

svoboda:

Teaching that some books should not be read and then abolishing the idea is a real change.

This has never been doctrine, and so is irrelevant.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[svoboda]

mlchance:

Neither of these is a change. Rather, they are strawmen. The Church has never taught that all non-Catholics will be damned, and the Church still teaches that atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion and “one of the most serious problems of our time.”

There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Here is an idea a pope CONDEMNED:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

1. Condemned Proposition: That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

By the way I think you can find all of those on www.papalencyclicals.net if you don’t believe me

This has never been doctrine, and so is irrelevant.

– Mark L. Chance.

But it was a teaching. How can you distinguish what is a doctrine and what is not? There have been only two official infallible teachings by the pope, everything else, if I’m not mistaken, is infallible by “ordinary magesterium”, which really means a collection of all Church teaching throughout the ages.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m afraid you are mistaken, svboda. (It is interesting that you pretty much appear to cut-and-paste on more than one thread the same tired old rhetoric of what you “believe” has changed).

It is rather disingenuous of you to ask a question, receive an answer, and then discount the answer entirely, or, “yes, but then there is THIS other thing”.

I recommended this to you on the OTHER thread, and I recommend it again. You don’t need to take OUR word about the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church.

Here you go–the Catechism on line.

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

Might I respectfully suggest that you may be misunderstanding the meaning of certain words? I feel that you perhaps might be thinking of “submission to the Roman Pontiff” as meaning that our separated brethren, or nonchristian brethren, should acknowledge either verbally or silently the authority of the Pope in apostolic succession to Peter. Of course, they do not (yet).

But “submission to the Roman Pontiff” does not mean that–so, as one poster remarked, you are indeed setting up a strawman.

We know–or SHOULD know–that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father save through Him. What the Church teaches and has ALWAYS taught is that salvation is through the Church–whether the individual being saved is fully aware of it or not. Because of the Church, we have the Holy Spirit, because of the Spirit, we have the Bible, because of individuals throughout history we have WITNESSES to Christ. It is through that witness that our separated brethren are, even if this is not fully understood, somehow still a part of the Catholic Church.

It is God’s great mercy that every individual has been granted sufficient SAVING GRACE for salvation. AGAIN, this is through the Church. WITHOUT Christ’s death and resurrection, and WITHOUT His establishment of His Church, we would all still be going to either hell or the limbo of the Fathers (look it up). BECAUSE of the Church, even those who have never heard of Jesus Christ can STILL be saved (though it would certainly be better if they knew him, why do you think we still have missionaries?) and these people are still, due to the hierarchical nature of the Church, “submitting to the Roman Pontiff”.

I hope you can understand this better now. Please, do yourself a favor and CHECK OUT THE CATECHISM.

PS–Church “teaching” in the Magesterium does not, for example, mean “no eating meat on Friday”–this was and remains a DISCIPLINE. Disciplines can be changed, dogma and doctrine cannot.

Honestly, why are you bent on giving yourself (and others) headaches through these very basic errors of yours, which are easily found out through a relatively brief and painless effort of taking the trouble to study the catechism? If you did, you would KNOW the differences of the “3 Ds”. You would KNOW exactly what the Church teaches. What a good source for witness you would be if you stopped straining at the gnats while gulping down the camels. . .

 

[thistle]

Tantum ergo:

I’m afraid you are mistaken, svboda. (It is interesting that you pretty much appear to cut-and-paste on more than one thread the same tired old rhetoric of what you “believe” has changed).

It is rather disingenuous of you to ask a question, receive an answer, and then discount the answer entirely, or, “yes, but then there is THIS other thing”.

I recommended this to you on the OTHER thread, and I recommend it again. You don’t need to take OUR word about the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church.

Here you go–the Catechism on line.

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

Might I respectfully suggest that you may be misunderstanding the meaning of certain words? I feel that you perhaps might be thinking of “submission to the Roman Pontiff” as meaning that our separated brethren, or nonchristian brethren, should acknowledge either verbally or silently the authority of the Pope in apostolic succession to Peter. Of course, they do not (yet).

But “submission to the Roman Pontiff” does not mean that–so, as one poster remarked, you are indeed setting up a strawman.

We know–or SHOULD know–that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father save through Him. What the Church teaches and has ALWAYS taught is that salvation is through the Church–whether the individual being saved is fully aware of it or not. Because of the Church, we have the Holy Spirit, because of the Spirit, we have the Bible, because of individuals throughout history we have WITNESSES to Christ. It is through that witness that our separated brethren are, even if this is not fully understood, somehow still a part of the Catholic Church.

It is God’s great mercy that every individual has been granted sufficient SAVING GRACE for salvation. AGAIN, this is through the Church. WITHOUT Christ’s death and resurrection, and WITHOUT His establishment of His Church, we would all still be going to either hell or the limbo of the Fathers (look it up). BECAUSE of the Church, even those who have never heard of Jesus Christ can STILL be saved (though it would certainly be better if they knew him, why do you think we still have missionaries?) and these people are still, due to the hierarchical nature of the Church, “submitting to the Roman Pontiff”.

I hope you can understand this better now. Please, do yourself a favor and CHECK OUT THE CATECHISM.

PS–Church “teaching” in the Magesterium does not, for example, mean “no eating meat on Friday”–this was and remains a DISCIPLINE. Disciplines can be changed, dogma and doctrine cannot.

Honestly, why are you bent on giving yourself (and others) headaches through these very basic errors of yours, which are easily found out through a relatively brief and painless effort of taking the trouble to study the catechism? If you did, you would KNOW the differences of the “3 Ds”. You would KNOW exactly what the Church teaches. What a good source for witness you would be if you stopped straining at the gnats while gulping down the camels. . .

 

[svoboda]

Tantum ergo:

I’m afraid you are mistaken, svboda. (It is interesting that you pretty much appear to cut-and-paste on more than one thread the same tired old rhetoric of what you “believe” has changed).

It is rather disingenuous of you to ask a question, receive an answer, and then discount the answer entirely, or, “yes, but then there is THIS other thing”.

I recommended this to you on the OTHER thread, and I recommend it again. You don’t need to take OUR word about the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church.

Here you go–the Catechism on line.

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

I have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church cover to cover, all 750 pages of it, every single word, I have even re-read some parts. I used to quote parts of the Catechism where the Church says that non-Catholics may be saved etc. I know what the Church teaches now.

But after reading the wirtings of past popes I think that they may very well have condemned as heresy those parts of the Catechism that imply that even atheists can be saved.

I think reconciling past popes with current teaching requires a lot of “doublethink.” Submission to the Roman Pontiff means just that, submission to the Roman Pontiff. I don’t think that the pope who wrote the encyclical intended it to mean something else. There is no evidence of it. I don’t think that the pope who said

“none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”

intended for there to be some kind of undetectable way for pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics to be inside the Church without being officially inside the Church. To him pagans, Jews etc. are outside the Catholic Church because they are pagans, Jews etc., not for some other reason.

I am very proud of the Catholic Church for now teaching that non Catholics can be saved! I think this is a great development/change, or whatever you prefer to call it.

We know–or SHOULD know–that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father save through Him. What the Church teaches and has ALWAYS taught is that salvation is through the Church–whether the individual being saved is fully aware of it or not. Because of the Church, we have the Holy Spirit, because of the Spirit, we have the Bible, because of individuals throughout history we have WITNESSES to Christ. It is through that witness that our separated brethren are, even if this is not fully understood, somehow still a part of the Catholic Church.

It is God’s great mercy that every individual has been granted sufficient SAVING GRACE for salvation. AGAIN, this is through the Church. WITHOUT Christ’s death and resurrection, and WITHOUT His establishment of His Church, we would all still be going to either hell or the limbo of the Fathers (look it up). BECAUSE of the Church, even those who have never heard of Jesus Christ can STILL be saved (though it would certainly be better if they knew him, why do you think we still have missionaries?) and these people are still, due to the hierarchical nature of the Church, “submitting to the Roman Pontiff”.

To me this is the example of “doublethink” that I mentioned. Yes, what you wrote down is the official teaching now. But do you honestly think if you showed it to Pope Boniface VIII he would have siad “yes, this is exactly what I meant”?

I think if he meant that he would have written that, but he wrote that in order to be saved every creature must submit to the Roman Pontiff.

 

[JSmitty2005]

svoboda:

Here is an idea a pope CONDEMNED:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

1. Condemned Proposition: That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

I think that we should kill formal heretics. If we execute murderers that destroy biological lives, then why not execute heretics that destroy spiritual lives for all of eternity? Heresy is the gravest of all sins.

 

[svoboda]

JSmitty2005:

I think that we should kill formal heretics. If we execute murderers that destroy biological lives, then why not execute heretics that destroy spiritual lives for all of eternity? Heresy is the gravest of all sins.

Does it mean you think we should kill self professed atheists?

 

[JSmitty2005]

svoboda:

Does it mean you think we should kill self professed atheists?

Is just any old atheist a heretic?

 

[svoboda]

JSmitty2005:

Is just any old atheist a heretic?

What does it mean to be a heretic? Disagreeing with the Church and teaching it to others? Or is disagreement on its own sufficient?

 

[JSmitty2005]

JSmitty2005:

Is just any old atheist a heretic?

I’ll answer my own question. A heretic is someone who denies an article of the Catholic faith after their baptism. (yes, even just one…Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum quotes St. Augustine as saying: “‘In many things they [the heretics] are with me, in a few things they are not with me; but in the few things which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them.’”) Also, you may have noted that I said a formal heretic, not a material one. This means that they must be born Catholic. Obviously, someone shouldn’t be killed for that unless they’re spreading their errors, but if they are, then torch 'em!

 

[JSmitty2005]

svoboda:

What does it mean to be a heretic? Disagreeing with the Church and teaching it to others? Or is disagreement on its own sufficient?

If you’ve read your Catechism as you claim, you’d know what heresy is:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal **denial *** of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate **doubt ** concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Sbovoboda:

Look, first of all Pope Boniface wouldn’t even read English–or recognize modern day English, so let’s put THAT idea to rest.

Second, you speculate that he would not say of the teaching of the Catechism, “Yes that’s what I meant”.

Do you not see that you are RETROACTIVELY stating not “the Church changes teaching”, but that the Holy Spirit DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST ERROR. . .and once you have professed that, what does the Catholic Church become? Not the church which would stand against the gates of hell, certainly. You might make a case, with Orthodoxy, of the Catholic Church being the “oldest Christian church”. . .but the best you could hope for was it being the better of all the alternatives.

The Catholic Church is not just ONE OF MANY; the very name “Catholic”, UNIVERSAL, puts it as THE ONE.

If speculate you must, you must (logically speaking) argue that it is just as likely (statistically speaking) that Boniface et. al would say, “YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT”. . .

And speaking as a Catholic, that latter is the ONLY conclusion you can draw and still remain IN DOCTRINE a Catholic.

Do you not see that you are swaying toward a dangerous modern heresy. . .

I repeat, INDIVIDUALS in the Church are PECCABLE and FALLIBLE.

The CHURCH ITSELF is IMPECCABLE and INFALLIBLE in its teachings; like God itself it is, was and WILL BE so.

I will not conform to some relativist vision which (with the best of intentions I’m sure) is hell-bent (literally) on turning the Church into some flawed, changable, mutable REFLECTION of whatever teaching, hypothesis, or 'Ism" is fashionable at any given point.

As one person once said, “You worship God in your way, and I in His”. . .

 

[svoboda]

JSmitty2005:

If you’ve read your Catechism as you claim, you’d know what heresy is:

I read it, I didn’t memorize it.

So, if you had power, I trust you’d torch me?