Question about dogma / infallible teachings

[Dovekin]

It is an example of an infallible teaching using the language expressed HERE

Yes, I understand that that is your position.

I was just quoting the opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger, writing for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

You do not agree on whether papal infallibility was active when Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was issued.

 

[Dovekin]

this is not the type of change the OP was referring to. The original statement concerned ‘can something be a sin today but not tomorrow?’

Then restate it in terms of performing a sin, ie Pius IX taught that it was a sin to allow a non Catholic to practice their religion.

The hermeneutic of reform implies continuity and discontinuity together on different levels. As a general principle, it recognizes discontinuities like those you are denying.

 

[Rau]

You agreed that the Church once taught that lending money at interest was sinful. It now teaches that same act is not sinful.

At one point in time, to cut off an arm would have been considered sinful. At one point in time, that physical act could be nothing but mutilation. Mutilation is a sin. Now, the same physical act is most often not a sin. Because it is not mutilation.

 

[thistle]

I’m sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Are you saying that the Church changed the definition of Usury, and that is the reason that lending money at interest is now not sinful? That can’t be right.

Can you explain how you believe finances have changed such that interest was once sinful but now is not?

I will provide an example that may help. In medieval times if I were to loan you $100 for a year and asked you to repay me $105, that would have been condemned as sinful by the Church as Usury. Do we agree on that? But today, I could do the exact same act - loan $100 for a year and ask for $105 in return, and the Church would say that is not sinful. Right? So what has changed to make that act sinful in the past but not sinful now?

Did the Church Change Its Stance on Usury? | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[whatistrue]

Are you saying that the Church changed the definition of Usury,

It has already been pointed out to you that the Church only officially defined Usury in the 16th century.

 

[vsedriver]

Can you explain how you believe finances have changed such that interest was once sinful but now is not?

this link explains it very well:

Did the Church Change Its Doctrine on Usury? - Crisis Magazine

 

[vsedriver]

Pius IX taught that it was a sin to allow a non Catholic to practice their religion.

can you cite the document where Pius IX declares it a sin to allow a non-Catholic to practice their religion? Does that mean every Christian who had Jewish neighbors and allowed them to go to Synagogue was sinning???

 

[TMC]

At one point in time, to cut off an arm would have been considered sinful. At one point in time, that physical act could be nothing but mutilation. Mutilation is a sin. Now, the same physical act is most often not a sin. Because it is not mutilation.

Yes, but you are talking about different acts, with a different character and intent. Charging interest hasn’t changed in character or intent. In the past, money lenders charged interest to make a profit off of loaning to others. Money lenders do the same today. In the past, that was considered sinful. Today it is not.

 

[steve-b]

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

steve-b:

It is an example of an infallible teaching using the language expressed HERE

Yes, I understand that that is your position.

I was just quoting the opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger, writing for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

You do not agree on whether papal infallibility was active when Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was issued.

And I was NOT giving my opinion. The Most Recent Ex Cathedra Statement | Catholic Answers

 

[TMC]

I am not sure what point you want to make by providing that article, but I find it entirely consistent with what I am saying. The author says that the teaching on usury has changed, but says the change is a development of doctrine driven by a changed understanding of money. That is exactly what I am saying. The underlying moral teaching remains, but a change in understanding changes how the teaching is applied to specific acts.

 

[TMC]

It has already been pointed out to you that the Church only officially defined Usury in the 16th century.

OK, I am not the one saying the Church changed the definition of Usury. I was asking if you were arguing that. I am saying that the Church changed how that moral principle is applied to the act of lending money at interest. Specifically, lending money at interest was once held to be always sinful, and today it is not.

 

[TMC]

Yes, that article agrees 100% with my position. It says that the Church’s teaching on the application of Usury changed because the Church’s understanding of money changed. Some quotes:

These days, we think of usury as charging an astronomical interest rate on a loan, but for most of the last 2,000 years, usury referred to any interest charged on a loan—that is, usury was more or less identified with charging interest on a money loan.

Far from being a trivial moral peccadillo, it was seen as a damnable offense.

And from the conclusion:

Our thicker understanding of money simply leads us to recognize that most ordinary bank loans exact a cost on the lender and have value to the borrower, and so are not usurious. Perhaps there are other examples of the Church changing doctrine—though I doubt it—but her teaching on usury is not one of them.

I agree. The Church has not changed the doctrine - the moral teaching that is the basis of Usury. But the Church’s deeper understanding of money and how it works has lead the Church to change the teaching on the sinfulness of specific acts - in this case the act of lending money at interest.

So it appears maybe we all agree after all. The underlying moral teachings of the Church remain constant, but changes and growth in understanding can cause the Church to change the teaching on the morality of specific acts. It indisputably happened with Usury - specifically lending of money at interest. It is happening right now with justified killing - specifically the death penalty. It could therefore happen in the future with other issues.

 

[Dovekin]

And I was NOT giving my opinion . The Most Recent Ex Cathedra Statement | Catholic Answers

Your reference says:

the requirements for ex cathedra or extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium and the requirements for infallible teaching are not exactly the same. There can be teachings that are taught infallibly but are not presented in an extraordinary form of definition. The chief example of this would be St. John Paul II’s declaration on the ordination of women to the priesthood Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on May 22, 1994…

He is distinguishing between ex cathedra teaching and infallible teaching.

In your post you described ex cathedra teaching by quoting Vatican I. You then posted “an example of infallible teaching.” I did not understand that you were distinguishing “infallible teaching” from ex cathedra teaching; it seemed rather to be an example of what you had just described. Thank you for the clarification, and my apologies for misunderstanding your point.

 

[Torquemada72]

Why would I argue this? Probably irrational compulsion. I see random arguments in the wild, and I feel hopelessly compelled to fight. I literally can’t sleep sometimes knowing someone is wrong on the internet.

As previously stated, I can’t comprehend how something (anything) that was considered “sin” for thousands of years by the God of monotheism could be transmogrified into a non-sin through the magical passage of time, or through the “enlightened” theological speculation of those whose worldviews seem to be nothing more than “American liberalism” - with a light coating of God-rhetoric to justify their claims.

 

[Rau]

Yes, but you are talking about different acts, with a different character and intent.

Physically the same acts. Physically indistinguishable.

Charging interest hasn’t changed in character or intent.

I don’t know - I don’t have the knowledge to confirm that. I wanted to expose that “Human Acts” are not necessarily what they appear to be.

 

[Rau]

the change is a development of doctrine driven by a changed understanding of money.

As the understanding of surgery changed?

to change the teaching on the sinfulness of specific acts - in this case the act of lending money at interest.

The church can only teach on moral issues. It has nothing to say about the purely physical.

 

[vsedriver]

The underlying moral teachings of the Church remain constant, but changes and growth in understanding can cause the Church to change the teaching on the morality of specific acts

It could therefore happen in the future with other issues.

but not with abortion or homosexual acts as these have already been defined by the church.

 

[Rau]

It is happening right now with justified killing - specifically the death penalty.

Where on earth did you get that idea? The church has in recent times addressed prudential factors surrounding CP, and concluded that these days, CP is uncalled for; that it does more harm than good. It has always been open to the supreme civil authority to make that judgement, and the church now calls upon them to make it. The supreme authority may in good conscience come to a different decision and in so doing does not sin if acting with good intention.

 

[TMC]

As the understanding of surgery changed?

That may be the case. I think the mutilation question has more to do with the intent of the act, but I am happy to accept it as a similar example.

The church can only teach on moral issues. It has nothing to say about the purely physical.

I am not sure I agree with this statement, but perhaps we agree on the underlying sentiment.

In my view, the Church teaches on moral issues, and applies those moral issues to the material world as best as the Church can, given the Church’s understanding of the material world, including the moral implications of physical acts and material issues. When the understanding of the nature of the material world changes, that can lead to changes in the Church’s teaching on the admissibility of certain acts. Thus, the teaching on the sinfulness of a particular act can change (such as the act of lending at interest), while the moral teaching does not change.

 

[TMC]

but not with abortion or homosexual acts as these have already been defined by the church.

You may be right, you may be wrong. The Church certainly clearly defined the morality of interest in the past - and that changed. I am not saying that either of those teachings will change. It certainly seems unlikely. But I don’t see how one can say one or the other with any certainty.