Question about Popes changing doctrines

[CuriousDave]

Hey there,

Do I understand this correctly: the Popes can change the official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and do so under the direction of the Holy Spirit. If so, what’s up with a Pope making one doctrine then another Pope changing it/ removing it (throughout history)? Would that not mean the Holy Spirit tells one Pope “This is correct” then tells another Pope “This is wrong” (i.e. contradicting itself)?

Please understand I am not Roman Catholic, and I am not trying to point out flaws. I don’t even know if this is the right section to post in; the only clue I had was that my question is relevant to Church History

 

[YoungTradCath]

The Church will from time to time define an infallible doctrine or dogma. And from time to time, at a later period in history, She will further develop the definition of that infallible doctrine or dogma.

However, doctrines and dogmas do not just cease to exist.

 

[Rich_C]

The experts will answer better than I, but the short answer is: even a pope cannot change a doctrine declared by a previous pope. Throughout history the Church has been remarkably (I’d almost say perfectly) consistent in its teachings. Rather than changing, teaching have become better defined each time a group has challenged or misinterpreted one of them. But the Church is safeguarding the deposit of faith given to the Apostles by Our Lord, not inventing new things as she goes along.

God bless.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Popes can only change/lift/institute certain disciplinary measures, such as fasting, celibacy, etc. or place a ban on certain lines of theological exposition for an indefinite time, but they can NEVER change or eliminate an established doctrine as pertains to faith or morals (i.e. they cannot declare that Mary was not without sin; they cannot declare that anything that has been considered to be a sin in and of itself to be no longer sinful, etc.) As new problems arise, however, I believe they can elaborate on moral issues (for instance, recycling may now be considered a moral issue.)

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Hey there,

Do I understand this correctly: the Popes can change the official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and do so under the direction of the Holy Spirit. If so, what’s up with a Pope making one doctrine then another Pope changing it/ removing it (throughout history)? Would that not mean the Holy Spirit tells one Pope “This is correct” then tells another Pope “This is wrong” (i.e. contradicting itself)?

Please understand I am not Roman Catholic, and I am not trying to point out flaws. I don’t even know if this is the right section to post in; the only clue I had was that my question is relevant to Church History

As others have indicated the answer is no, the Pope cannot change the official doctrines of the Catholic Church. The Popes, and the bishops collectively, are the stewards and authoritative interpreters of Apostolic Tradition (including Scripture), not its inventors.

Now, a Pope can formally define a doctrine which had not been formally defined before (though it will have always been present in the Church’s beliefs in some form) or even suppress an idea that had been tolerated (though not definitively taught) in the Church previously, but both of these are examples of clarifying/interpreting the beliefs that already existed in the time of the Apostles and which have been handed on intact through every subsequent Christian generation, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

We believe that the Pope is, and the bishops collectively are, infallible when formally defining a matter of faith or morals to be believed by the whole Church, because if they were to authoritatively bind us to an error that would be a victory of Satan over the Church of a sort we believe God will never allow to happen.

 

[beehumble]

We believe that the Pope is, and the bishops collectively are, infallible when formally defining a matter of faith or morals to be believed by the whole Church, because if they were to authoritatively bind us to an error that would be a victory of Satan over the Church of a sort we believe God will never allow to happen.

That is the most concise, most perfect description of Papal infallibility I have ever heard.


God bless you.

 

[garyo49]

Hey there,

Do I understand this correctly: the Popes can change the official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and do so under the direction of the Holy Spirit. If so, what’s up with a Pope making one doctrine then another Pope changing it/ removing it (throughout history)? Would that not mean the Holy Spirit tells one Pope “This is correct” then tells another Pope “This is wrong” (i.e. contradicting itself)?

Please understand I am not Roman Catholic, and I am not trying to point out flaws. I don’t even know if this is the right section to post in; the only clue I had was that my question is relevant to Church History

What is relationship with Christ? It seems like to me with this kind of a question you have an agenda and are hiding behind "relationship with Christ. Why don’t you come clean and be honest? I think you are mormon or JW maybe.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

What is relationship with Christ? It seems like to me with this kind of a question you have an agenda and are hiding behind "relationship with Christ. Why don’t you come clean and be honest? I think you are mormon or JW maybe.

There are plenty of other, perhaps more likely possibilities, like an Evangelical of the sort who thinks in terms of “relationship, not religion.”

Anyway, this isn’t a good way to greet a new member who to judge from his only post so far has come here in good will with honest questions about Catholicism.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

For garyo49: You stated in your text that you are not a Roman Catholic, yet you list your religion on signing up as Catholic. What are you?

 

[Michael_Francis]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/Off-Topic--Alert.gif
Three posts removed as off topic. Such discussions need to be carried out through the PM system as per the Forum Rules.
Please keep all posts on topic.
Thanks

 

[neophyte]

Hey there,

Do I understand this correctly: the Popes can change the official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and do so under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

By “changing” I take you to mean “declare a doctrine that contradicts another doctrine”. No, that’s not correct, the Pope has no such authority.

If so, what’s up with a Pope making one doctrine then another Pope changing it/ removing it (throughout history)?

That’s never happened. Not once. If it had then I would not have entered the Church in 2004. I tried to find such an instance, spent a year looking at each supposed event I heard of, and came up dry.

 

[CuriousDave]

Thanks for all your answers

So I was incorrect about the Pope’s authority, and its untrue that some doctrines have been dramatically changed over the course of history.

Does a Pope have authority to canonize certain books, though?

That’s all for this thread, thanks.

 

[PeterJohn]

Thanks for all your answers

So I was incorrect about the Pope’s authority, and its untrue that some doctrines have been dramatically changed over the course of history.

Does a Pope have authority to canonize certain books, though?

That’s all for this thread, thanks.

Like what kind of books?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Thanks for all your answers

So I was incorrect about the Pope’s authority, and its untrue that some doctrines have been dramatically changed over the course of history.

Does a Pope have authority to canonize certain books, though?

That’s all for this thread, thanks.

Yes, the Pope has the authority to declare which books are canonical, though again he is the steward of that tradition and not its inventor (by the way, a list of inspired which ancient books are inspired is one extrabiblical tradition no Protestant can do without). The book would thus have to be from the time of the Apostles or before and have been considered Scripture by Catholics all through history.

As it has actually happened, the canon of Scripture has been defined not by Popes but by Church councils, including Ecumenical Councils which have similar authority to that of the Pope. Most Catholics would agree that there is no chance of additional books being canonized since all the books widely regarded as Biblical by Catholics have already been canonized, and many Catholics will even insist (wrongly, as it turns out) that the canon has been definitively closed.

 

[CuriousDave]

Yes, the Pope has the authority to declare which books are canonical, though again he is the steward of that tradition and not its inventor (by the way, a list of inspired which ancient books are inspired is one extrabiblical tradition no Protestant can do without). The book would thus have to be from the time of the Apostles or before and have been considered Scripture by Catholics all through history.

As it has actually happened, the canon of Scripture has been defined not by Popes but by Church councils, including Ecumenical Councils which have similar authority to that of the Pope. Most Catholics would agree that there is no chance of additional books being canonized since all the books widely regarded as Biblical by Catholics have already been canonized, and many Catholics will even insist (wrongly, as it turns out) that the canon has been definitively closed.

True, there was no list of canonized scriptures, but it was already clear which ones where considered inspired by the Jews. What scares me is that we all have to put faith in these Council meetings in that they canonized the correct books. I myself dispute some of the books canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, and even more by the Orthodox Catholic Church.

 

[Trebor135]

True, there was no list of canonized scriptures, but it was already clear which ones where considered inspired by the Jews.

Why should we conclude from the Jewish people having an Old Testament that no additional books could be declared inspired with finality by the New Covenant Church?

What scares me is that we all have to put faith in these Council meetings in that they canonized the correct books.

Why does this frighten you?

I myself dispute some of the books canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, and even more by the Orthodox Catholic Church.

To paraphrase your words from above: “What scares me is that we all have to put faith in some guy on the Internet in that he claims to have the authority (indeed, simply assumes it without further argument!) to canonize the correct books.”

If we’re going to operate under this framework, let’s just ditch the whole Bible and start over again. Or, perhaps I could set up a church of my own to complement the thousands of other warring sects; I can just claim, “No angel can judge my teaching,” to cite Luther, and we’re good to go.

 

[neophyte]

…What scares me is that we all have to put faith in these Council meetings in that they canonized the correct books…

Why are you afraid to trust in Christ’s promise that he would prevent his Church from teaching false doctrine?

 

[highrigger1]

Yes, the Pope has the authority to declare which books are canonical, though again he is the steward of that tradition and not its inventor (by the way, a list of inspired which ancient books are inspired is one extrabiblical tradition no Protestant can do without). The book would thus have to be from the time of the Apostles or before and have been considered Scripture by Catholics all through history.

As it has actually happened, the canon of Scripture has been defined not by Popes but by Church councils, including Ecumenical Councils which have similar authority to that of the Pope. Most Catholics would agree that there is no chance of additional books being canonized since all the books widely regarded as Biblical by Catholics have already been canonized, and many Catholics will even insist (wrongly, as it turns out) that the canon has been definitively closed.

Aelred,

Correction. No pope has ever declared whether a bible book is canical or not. The first time the RCC declared canical any bible book was at Trent. Before that any declarations were either by individuall opinion or individual churches which did not count churchwide.

Protestants accept all the books of the bible traditionally accepted by the RCC except for the deuterocanicals which they consider apochrypha as was considered by many in the RCC before Trent. Jerome declared those books as apochrypha (questionable) when he prepared the Vulgate. Protestants agree with that opinion.

Trent did not close the canon. It is theoretically possible to add a book though not likely.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

True, there was no list of canonized scriptures, but it was already clear which ones where considered inspired by the Jews. What scares me is that we all have to put faith in these Council meetings in that they canonized the correct books. I myself dispute some of the books canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, and even more by the Orthodox Catholic Church.

If you can’t trust that Christ’s church, guided by the Holy Spirit, would canonize the right documents to comprise the New Testament, how can you trust that any individual writing is authentic and guided by the same Holy Spirit?

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

Does a Pope have authority to canonize certain books, though?

It might be worth pointing out that the Bible is Church-based, and not the other way around. The Bible is a compilation of writings that best illustrate and teach Church doctrine. The belief isn’t that the writers of the biblical books took direct dictation from God, as it is with the Muslim Quran, although the Holy Spirit undoubtedly played a crucial role in both the writing of biblical books (as well as the Council of Trent’s discernment on the matter).

I don’t see why there would be an imperative to add new books to the Bible, since scripture reflects the teachings of the Church instead of defining them. You see, the guys at Trent knew the truths of the faith–they needed to find the best books for expressing those truth. There may have been some very good and completely authentic gospels that didn’t make the cut because of redundancy or irrelevance to certain matters of faith.