Questions about validity of some catholic practices

[to_seek]

Just to say thanks for some interesting thoughts and web sites youve contributed to my quest for the real truth. I am definitely persuing each thread because at heart I really want to return to the RC convinced it is the truth and so not wander away and get into the confusion that Ive got into:thumbsup:

 

[KathleenGee]

Essentially, Galileo delved into the jurisdiction of theology and that is the reason for his arrest.

The other day Fox News said that Copernicus was not absolved of his sins against the church.

Copernicus was in the initial studies regarding our solar system, was never condemned. You have to watch the media for smear, especially when the reporter starts giggling.

 

[Newbie2]

Ive been in and around some sites for a while putting my little bit in here and there. Now I would like to ask some questions of my own that bother me as I contemplate returning to RC myself. [First regarding one true church discussions ***-I cannot find any scriptural or historical evidence *

that when Jesus was teaching and preaching to the Apostles,He referred to setting up such a complicated belief system for future followers to follow. He clearly understood the people of His time and generally spoke using parables that they understood. Would He not have set up the Church to believe the exact same things He taught to the Apostles in a simple clear fashion.? Is it not true that perhaps when He spoke the famous line often quoted here" upon this rock I will build my church"He meant the universal Christian Church to which all catholics and protestants would belong as one[/RIGHT] [Regarding liturgy etc, again** I can only see the succession of Popes and Councils over the centuries bringing in all sorts of new beliefs according to their interpretation. If one keeps to reading His Word alone, no mention is made of purgatory, types of sin, and sacraments. The only two clear instructions were to baptize those who come to believe and break bread together “in memory of Me”" which is what we understand in most churches as Holy Communion.[/INDENT]

A couple of observations:

1. Catholic theology is based on Scripture and Tradition. So if there is no “scriptural evidence”, the basis for a notion is Tradition i.e. orally passed on “things”.

There is a scriptural basis for Tradition. BTW. So there is “historical” evidence for what you mentined as well as scriptural i.e. early Church writings.

Keep in mind too that these things, “interpretations” are all under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

1. “New beliefs” are more correctly “furthered understanding” or “developed theology”. Jesus didn’t say that, for example, only babies should be baptized or only adults as some protestants practice. Every denomination has practices that are not explicitly taken from the words of our Lord.

I think it’s wise to look deeper into the scriptures, first to understand their support for Catholic Tradition and second to get a better understanding that not everything Jesus said is written down. Catholicism starts to fall into place once you can begin to appreciate Tradition.

 

[Bluegoat]

Actually when the Church formulated the Nicene creed…they did not put in anything about transubstantiation or the Eucharist because nobody disagreed with it at that time.

I never suggested that they were included in the Nicene Creed.

 

[MariaG]

God bless you Maria, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church…

Scripture, the Catechism and the Holy Spirit:extrahappy:

 

[MariaG]

Yes, the Cathechism is very helpful. It will not answer every question in an easy to understand way, but even when you can’t understand the language it at leasts points you in the right direction. The CCC is by far the best and most complete summary of what we believe as Catholics and why. I must emphasize, however, that it is a summary. That’s why it has the footnotes for scripture and for ecumenical council teachings.

Absolutely a summary, but respectfully, I found it very easy to understand, if one is willing to put in the time to look it all up. I would look up things topically and read every entry in the Catechism, looking up every corresponding entry in scripture. I know all might not find it easy to understand, but I did and still do. (But when I say I look up every reference in the catechism and the bible, I mean every one, with several different bible translations and footnotes from the translations:nerd:And today, I have added some of the other references in the footnotes of the catechism. It CAN take awhile) I will still pull it out if I read scripture today and am not quite sure I understand what it means,

I was very much a “scripture alone” then, so I did not look up the other documents. Although I would say, having looked some up since that most those footnotes eventually lead back to scripture for the most part.

But I do understand that not all have the same learning style

God Bless,
Maria

 

[adrift]

So you’re saying Galileo was NOT placed under house arrest for his teachings?

I am saying that you can find no official documents that the Church taught it. It was not taught by the Church. As for Galileo, he was arrested for disobedience. He was told not to teach the Copernican theory as a fact only as a **theory. ** For a good understanding, read Warren H. Carroll “A History of Christendom”. You will find the account of Galileo in the 4th book of the series The Cleaving of Christendom. Part of what he says is:

Galileo was actually, therefore, convicted not of heresy but of disobedience. The
Church never ruled the Copernican theory a heresy, despite the initial wildly imprudent declaration of the the theologians’ committee and the Holy Office in 1616 that it was “false and absurd,” which in fact they had no authority to decide.

 

[zach_dunn]

So you’re saying Galileo was NOT placed under house arrest for his teachings?

My understanding is that Galileo was placed under house arrest because of a letter he wrote entitled “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christiana of Tuscany” in which he states the following (source):
Galileo:

The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err; it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes a erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun is inherently motionless and the earth movable.

With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might; fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands ans eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of` things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities, Of the common people, who are rude and unlearned.

I believe (my European history teacher taught me this and he’s Lutheran), that Galileo’s harsh words about the Bible — harsh but not necessarily untrue — are what got him into trouble with the Church, not his theory. This idea is further supported by the fact that Copernicus’ heliocentric theory was accepted as “interesting”. Granted that he published his book near the end of his life, he never was persecuted for his theses, they were even encouraged by the Archbishop of Capua (source):
Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg:

Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you… For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe… Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject …

This is why I believe it was Galileo’s statements to Christiana are what got him in trouble.

 

[graceandglory]

No argument on either side being out of line, but the Church took action because Galileo (a practicing Catholic) was teaching something that was in disagreement with what the Church had been teaching.

It started with an investigation, and ended with Galileo being placed under house arrest for “holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world and motionless and the earth moves even with diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for being in correspondence with some German mathematicians about it; for having published some letters entitiled On Sunspots, in which you explained the same doctrine as true; for interpreting Holy Scripture according to your own meaning in response to objections based on Scripture which were sometimes made to you; and whereas later we received a copy of an essay in the form of a letter, which was said to have been written by you to a former disciple of yours and which in accordance with Copernicus’s position contains various propositions against the authority and true meaning of Holy Scripture”

Just saying…

That’s the beauty of our Church, though. We grow and change just as our knowledge grows and changes. Unless someone finds the body of Jesus Christ in a tomb somewhere, we’re pretty safe in our beliefs.

**
The Papacy and Galileo by Patrick Madrid**
catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0033.html

 

[adrift]

No argument on either side being out of line, but the Church took action because Galileo (a practicing Catholic) was teaching something that was in disagreement with what the Church had been teaching.

It started with an investigation, and ended with Galileo being placed under house arrest*** for "holding as true the false doctrine*** taught by some that the sun is the center of the world "

Just saying…

For holding as True not for the doctrine itself.
To return to you original assertion which is that

Actually the Church’s beliefs have changed over the years. Remember, our Church once taught that the Earth was the center of the universe.

zach dunn To my knowledge, the Church never defined geocentrism as a doctrine or dogma

The Church’s beliefs have not changed. Individuals in the Church ideas may have changed but that does not constitute the Church. So NO the Church’s beliefs have not changed.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I never suggested that they were included in the Nicene Creed.

No–but you said “Now, some non-Catholic Christians do think that the Catholic Church began to go beyond this practice, and has defined too many things as necessary for belief. Purgatory, indulgences, or transubstantiation (as distinct from the Real Presence) are examples. Obviously Catholics disagree about this.”

My point was that the early Church all agreed on the Eucharist. This is evidenced by the fact that they didn’t argue about it and therefore did not define it in the Nicene Creed. Because it was accepted. Now how things got so far off track…I don’t know…certainly Martin Luther did not start that. I wonder sometimes how some Protestants got from that to symbolically…but that’s another thread.

Point being…the Catholic church ALREADY had their position on it…and always has…it was other people who strayed off that course.

 

[estesbob]

So you’re saying Galileo was NOT placed under house arrest for his teachings?

Galelio got in trouble not for what he taught but the way he taught. He wrote a book og heliocentrism that portrayed the Pope as a simpleton

 

[Bluegoat]

No–but you said “Now, some non-Catholic Christians do think that the Catholic Church began to go beyond this practice, and has defined too many things as necessary for belief. Purgatory, indulgences, or transubstantiation (as distinct from the Real Presence) are examples. Obviously Catholics disagree about this.”

My point was that the early Church all agreed on the Eucharist. This is evidenced by the fact that they didn’t argue about it and therefore did not define it in the Nicene Creed. Because it was accepted. Now how things got so far off track…I don’t know…certainly Martin Luther did not start that. I wonder sometimes how some Protestants got from that to symbolically…but that’s another thread.

Point being…the Catholic church ALREADY had their position on it…and always has…it was other people who strayed off that course.

Well, yes and no. The Early Church all agreed on the Real Presence.

Transubstantiation in the sense which the CC defines it didn’t come until much later. It depends very much on an Aristotelian understanding that was not even possible until the 13th century, when the West suddenly had access through the Muslims to texts that had been lost to them.

No one disagreed with it before then because it hadn’t been formulated.

 

[musicality]

Actually the Church’s beliefs have changed over the years. Remember, our Church once taught that the Earth was the center of the universe.

What is great about our Church is that it does not give itself over to frenzy. The Church has established rules to allow it to change as our knowledge and understanding of God and the world around us grows and changes, but it is a slow process.

In answer to the original questions, the Church’s teachings begin with Sacred Scripture and continue with Tradition. As has already been said, the Church has had to face untrue teachings from within and without. To answer these problems, ecumenical councils such as Nicea, Trent, Vatican I and II were convened to research and develop clear teachings for the rest of us.

You are partially correct. I wasn’t considering scientific beliefs. That being said, I’m not sure that this was truly a “teaching” of the Church.

Also, the Catholic Church today is a great supporter of science and scholasticism.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Well, yes and no. The Early Church all agreed on the Real Presence.

Transubstantiation in the sense which the CC defines it didn’t come until much later. It depends very much on an Aristotelian understanding that was not even possible until the 13th century, when the West suddenly had access through the Muslims to texts that had been lost to them.

No one disagreed with it before then because it hadn’t been formulated.

Well-obviously I disagree with you. Many things are in the bible already…purgatory and yes transubstantiation (although it wasn’t given a name, but then neither was the Trinity). But I don’t think we are going to agree…

 

[BryanM27]

You are partially correct. I wasn’t considering scientific beliefs. That being said, I’m not sure that this was truly a “teaching” of the Church.

Also, the Catholic Church today is a great supporter of science and scholasticism.

Alright, we’ve beaten this particular topic to death and I thank all those who responded to my posts and have helped educate me beyond what I learned in my history course at Catholic High School.

But let’s just be honest with ourselves for a moment… The Church has changed some of it’s teachings over the centuries. This has happened as the Magisterium has studied the Scripture and Tradition of our Church. The only teachings that cannot change are the infallable teachings of the Pope, of which there are not very many over the course of our history. In fact, there has only been ONE since the doctrine was defined in 1870.

Bottom line (and a reason I love being Catholic) is that our church can and will change teachings on some issues as we have evolved.

As to the support of science…I hesitate on the word great. For good reasons, the Church does limit its support (i.e. stem-cell research).

 

[the_hazel_nut]

Alright, we’ve beaten this particular topic to death and I thank all those who responded to my posts and have helped educate me beyond what I learned in my history course at Catholic High School.

But let’s just be honest with ourselves for a moment… The Church has changed some of it’s teachings over the centuries. This has happened as the Magisterium has studied the Scripture and Tradition of our Church. The only teachings that cannot change are the infallable teachings of the Pope, of which there are not very many over the course of our history. In fact, there has only been ONE since the doctrine was defined in 1870.

Bottom line (and a reason I love being Catholic) is that our church can and will change teachings on some issues as we have evolved.

As to the support of science…I hesitate on the word great. For good reasons, the Church does limit its support (i.e. stem-cell research).

Well… it is my understanding that the church is infallible and unchanging on matters of faith and morals, right? Some say that geocentricism is a matter of faith infallibly defined by the church, though 99% disagree. Think about limbo. The church “taught” it, in that it was widely accepted, but it is widely rejected now. This is not the church changing, because limbo was not a dogma or doctrine, it was pious opinion.

If the church changed its teachings, what would be the point? Any church could claim to be the truth and then change its teachings.

All I’m saying is that if the church really has changed, then it’s not really The Church as it defines itself. That is why people are trying to tell you that it hasn’t changed.

At certain points in history , yes, I think the church was a great supporter of science, but it isn’t always, this is true. But the reason it doesn’t support embryonic stem cell research is because it is unethical science (it uses human embryos which the church defines as a person).

 

[BryanM27]

Well… it is my understanding that the church is infallible and unchanging on matters of faith and morals, right? Some say that geocentricism is a matter of faith infallibly defined by the church, though 99% disagree. Think about limbo. The church “taught” it, in that it was widely accepted, but it is widely rejected now. This is not the church changing, because limbo was not a dogma or doctrine, it was pious opinion.

If the church changed its teachings, what would be the point? Any church could claim to be the truth and then change its teachings.

All I’m saying is that if the church really has changed, then it’s not really The Church as it defines itself. That is why people are trying to tell you that it hasn’t changed.

At certain points in history , yes, I think the church was a great supporter of science, but it isn’t always, this is true. But the reason it doesn’t support embryonic stem cell research is because it is unethical science (it uses human embryos which the church defines as a person).

I said “for good reason.” But again, think about the way the Church defines and REdefines her teachings. She is slow and deliberate in her changes, and always insures there is a reason for the change.

You’re right that any church can claim to have the truth and constantly change it’s teachings, the Catholic Church does not “constantly” make changes. Changes come about because of years of discussion, investigation and study of Scripture and Tradition. The bottom line is that the bible is inerrant in all things pertaining to salvation. That is something the Magisterium keeps to in its teachings for our church.

 

[adrift]

I said “for good reason.” But again, think about the way the Church defines and REdefines her teachings. She is slow and deliberate in her changes, and always insures there is a reason for the change.

You’re right that any church can claim to have the truth and constantly change it’s teachings, the Catholic Church does not “constantly” make changes. Changes come about because of years of discussion, investigation and study of Scripture and Tradition. The bottom line is that the bible is inerrant in all things pertaining to salvation. That is something the Magisterium keeps to in its teachings for our church.

The Church has never changed her teachings. You cannot name a teaching that was changed. You mentioned Galileo. Yet the Church never taught that the earth was the center of the universe. It was NEVER an official teaching. Do not confuse that some in the Church espouse a certain point of view the same as teachings those views. I wish to emphasize that there has Never been a change in teachings. Those who make this claim have not produced any evidence of it.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Correction:

Dr. Scott Hahn was a Reformed Presbyterian…he was also militant in his anti-Catholicism. If I remember correctly, he used to go around to Catholic Parishes during mass and place flyers on their car windows in an attempt to get them to “come to Christ” and get away from the superstition of the Catholic Church.

Just a side note there

I’m sure glad he came home!