Swiss Catholics call for same-sex partnerships, change in teaching on Communion [CWN]

[JesusPeaceLove]

Its obvious we will not agree on this. I think you are deeply mistaken with how the Church views itself. The Church is not, and does not claim to be, all-knowing or unchanging.

The church is not omniscient apart from Jesus but the church is his body and has Holy Spirit who is all knowing. Also it is you who are totally mistaken because you apparently are unaware that church believes the revelation is complete and that she already has fullness of the truth. There is nothing lacking. Our understanding may grow but the truth is the same it doesn’t change. Even more the church cannot be wrong when she makes clarification of the teaching. Are you unaware of these catholic beliefs? You think I am creating them?

Christ promised that the Spirit will continue to lead us toward all Truth. I believe that is what has been happening for millennia, and continues to happen. I have seen the growth and change even in my lifetime. I believe it will continue; you believe the Church is static and (apparently) that efforts to better understand Truth are therefore futile (or even heretical). I respect your position, although I fundamentally disagree. Perhaps the ongoing talks within the Church will enlighten us both.

You are wrong. I believe eforts to understand truth better are excellent. I believe efforts to change it are heretical. You are claiming that the sentences A is not B can turn into A is B just because 2000 years have passed since Jesus spoke the truth. This is a change. What I support is more understanding of the unchanging truth that Paul and Peter received and not more imposition of manmade ideas that Paul and Peter were taught by Jesus to reject.

 

[DCNBILL]

This verse does not show what the poster claim. Holy spirit did guide apostles to all truth and the revelation was brought to rememberance by the spirit to them and this revelation is scripture and holy tradition. The church believes that it finished with apostles not something going on forever. Like Jesus promised
“he will guide you to ALL truth” right in that verse and the church believes the holy spirit did that and we call it scripture and holy tradition. If someone believes that is hubris, that is up to them, but it is not to say that this is what the catholic church believes.

Yep.

 

[TMC]

This is what you claimed

“He also told us that** He was not,** and could not, teach us all of the Truth, in part because mankind was not ready for the fullness of the Truth.”

There is nothing like that in that verse you claim supports you. Your claim is that the church does not possess the fullness of truth and that is contradicted by Jesus in that same verse you quote and the church in the catechism. Quite the opposite to what you say, Jesus is promising the apostles that the holy spirit will teach them all truth and this truth is Jesus own truth. The church believes Jesus fulfilled this promise to apostles and that is what we call holy tradition. If you dont believe me just read the catechism. There is NOTHING TO ADD after Jesus revelation, the church says. The revelation is complete and any claim that is claiming additional revelation is rejected in the catechism.

That is pretty much exactly what John 16 says: “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.”

The Church’s position that revelation is complete does not mean that revelation cannot become better understood. Can you tell me where the Church says that it has all the answers and that there is nothing left to learn? If the Church has had all the answers to all the questions since the beginning, how do you explain the developments in Church teaching over the last 2000 years? For that matter, why are bishops and Cardinals discussing developments in Church doctrine, if there is nothing left to develop?

 

[JesusPeaceLove]

That is pretty much exactly what John 16 says: “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.”

John is recording something Jesus said to the apostles and he promised them what you claim the church has not yet gotten despit the church proclaiming from the rooftops that she has: the fullness of truth. The church believes we had this truth with the apostles it is not something we are missing now and waiting for. The church has never taught that she doesn’t have the fullness of truth at any point after the apostles which is what you said to sonofman poster “I guess our difference is that I don’t agree that we already have the Truth - at least not in full.” This a clear rejection of the claims of catholic church.

The Church’s position that revelation is complete does not mean that revelation cannot become better understood. Can you tell me where the Church says that it has all the answers and that there is nothing left to learn? If the Church has had all the answers to all the questions since the beginning, how do you explain the developments in Church teaching over the last 2000 years? For that matter, why are bishops and Cardinals discussing developments in Church doctrine, if there is nothing left to develop?

Like I said before it is very clear in history of the church that the church made clarifications in RESPONSE to heretical claims by quarters within the church. You are only making vague claims about development without pointing out with examples what you mean. Development has only ever been in the language chosen to express truth in order to remove the ambiguities the heretics use to claim revelation supports them. Just show me the truths you think church added that were missing earlier and then we can see about your calims of changes. The church only clarifies understanding . she never CONTRADICTS or DENY the truth she already proclaim and got from beginning nor even ADD something new to the revelation.

I dont believe Bishops are discussing developments of doctrine. some are discussing clear heresies. but others are discussing how to approach modern family crisis in pastoral approaches. synods do not discuss doctrinal changes its not their job. They have already said doctrine will not change so I think you are listening to misleading sources.

 

[TMC]

John is recording something Jesus said to the apostles and he promised them what you claim the church has not yet gotten despit the church proclaiming from the rooftops that she has: the fullness of truth. The church believes we had this truth with the apostles it is not something we are missing now and waiting for. The church has never taught that she doesn’t have the fullness of truth at any point after the apostles which is what you said to sonofman poster “I guess our difference is that I don’t agree that we already have the Truth - at least not in full.” This a clear rejection of the claims of catholic church.

We agree that Jesus promised that the Spirit would lead the Church toward Truth. The difference appears to be that I believe the Spirit is still doing so, you believe it is done. Can you point me to a statement by the Church that the Church now has all the answers and there is no need for further learning or development? I am aware of none. To the contrary, it seems to me that the Church is working hard to continue to grow in understanding.

Like I said before it is very clear in history of the church that the church made clarifications in RESPONSE to heretical claims by quarters within the church. You are only making vague claims about development without pointing out with examples what you mean. Development has only ever been in the language chosen to express truth in order to remove the ambiguities the heretics use to claim revelation supports them. Just show me the truths you think church added that were missing earlier and then we can see about your calims of changes. The church only clarifies understanding . she never CONTRADICTS or DENY the truth she already proclaim and got from beginning nor even ADD something new to the revelation.

“Clarifying” is a growth in understanding. The Church once taught that all charging of interest is evil - it has clarified that only excessive interest is evil. The Church once taught that keeping slaves was acceptable - it has since clarified that slavery is inherently evil. The Church once taught that failing to join the earthly institution of the Church would bar one from salvation - the Church has now clarified that salvation is possible for all, even without formal membership in the Church. Each of those represents growth in understanding, guided by the Spirit.

I dont believe Bishops are discussing developments of doctrine. some are discussing clear heresies. but others are discussing how to approach modern family crisis in pastoral approaches. synods do not discuss doctrinal changes its not their job. They have already said doctrine will not change so I think you are listening to misleading sources.

As I have consistently said, the Church has a long history of making changes without technically changing doctrine. That is exactly what the bishops are discussing, and I don’t believe any of them are heretics. You seem to believe that there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Brendan_64]

Contradiction is often in the mind of the beholder. There are many who believe that Vatican II contradicts earlier teachings. I view VII as a development on earlier teaching. If the Synod changes anything (a big “if”), I am sure there will be some difference of opinion on how to view that change.

Nevertheless, the world around us is not a source to inform Church teaching. The fullness of truth lies within the Catholic Church, therefore there is nothing from the outside world can inform Church teaching. If we are seeking to conform the Church towards the mind of the world outside of the Church then we are seeking to undermine the Church.

The Church does not learn from any perceived ‘development of mankind’, if we do that then we are building another Tower of Babel.

 

[JimG]

Obviously the Church does not and has never accepted the idea of continuing divine revelation. Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. The Church’s mission is to preserve and hand down what has been received.

Sometimes “development’s” in doctrine are not so much doctrinal developments as changes in the surrounding culture to which doctrine is applied. Interest on money is example. Money was a non-productive asset and so interest could not be charged. Now, money is a productive asset; a borrower uses it to earn more money and the lender is entitled to a return. That’s not a change in doctrine; that’s a change in the monetary system.

It’s true though, that our understanding of doctrine can be deepened. Is Jesus of like nature with the Father or of the same nature as the Father? Those are questions to be pondered, (that one has already been answered,) with the underlying question of "what is it that we have always believed? A doctrinal change which contradicts the former doctrine or makes a 180 degree turn is not a development but a change.

The Holy Spirit preserves the Church in correct doctrine, not in changing doctrine.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

After reading a lot of the posts here about communicating with God, I am curious to know whether anyone considered how the Holy Spirit communicates with the Popes?

I am certain that many of the Holy Fathers had very intimate conversations with the Holy Spirit and that these conversations have been quite clear. Pope St John Paul the Great comes to mind as a prime example. I am certain that the Blessed Mother also communicated directly with him. Unfortunately we are not privy to any of these communications, but given that Jesus promised us that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church and that the gates of hell will not prevail, I am certain there is more going on than we realize.

Given that during my limited experiences in Lectio Divina during Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament I have experienced some amazing communications with the Holy Spirit, I am very certain that communications do exist. Just no burning bushes.

 

[TMC]

Nevertheless, the world around us is not a source to inform Church teaching. The fullness of truth lies within the Catholic Church, therefore there is nothing from the outside world can inform Church teaching. If we are seeking to conform the Church towards the mind of the world outside of the Church then we are seeking to undermine the Church.

The Church does not learn from any perceived ‘development of mankind’, if we do that then we are building another Tower of Babel.

Why? The early Church Fathers were heavily influenced by Greek philosophers, and they were pagans. The Church may transcend this world, but it does not ignore it.

 

[JesusPeaceLove]

We agree that Jesus promised that the Spirit would lead the Church toward Truth. The difference appears to be that I believe the Spirit is still doing so, you believe it is done. Can you point me to a statement by the Church that the Church now has all the answers and there is no need for further learning or development? I am aware of none. To the contrary, it seems to me that the Church is working hard to continue to grow in understanding.

No. The difference is that the church not me already believes she has fullness of truth and you believe she does not. Yours is based on your own suppositions and not beliefs of the church. That is a big difference.

“Clarifying” is a growth in understanding. The Church once taught that all charging of interest is evil - it has clarified that only excessive interest is evil. The Church once taught that keeping slaves was acceptable - it has since clarified that slavery is inherently evil. The Church once taught that failing to join the earthly institution of the Church would bar one from salvation - the Church has now clarified that salvation is possible for all, even without formal membership in the Church. Each of those represents growth in understanding, guided by the Spirit.

The church used to believe that KNOWINGLY rejecting the church after learning she is church of Jesus christ puts you out of the salvation. Guess what? the church still believes so now. The church does not believe today that one can willfully refuse to join her and find salvation please learn the distinction. There is no change in doctrine like you imply. The church has also always believed that grace exists outside her visible borders that is nothing new. If you dont believe me just read about controversies in the early church about baptism outside the church or baptism by heretics. Guess what? the church believed it was true and effective baptism then just as she believes now. So again you have been misled. The church still believes that leaving or refuing to join her while knowing the truth about who she is puts one out of salvation. The church still believes that all salvation happens through her. The church still believes that grace operates outside the visible boundaries of the church. Also the church does not today definitively teach that unbaptised people go to heaven. What is expressed is just HOPE that God can find a way to do so that we don’t know about but we cant say he does definitievely. Even if there is, it will be through Jesus Christ and guess what? If it is through Jesus Christ it is through the church.

As I have consistently said, the Church has a long history of making changes without technically changing doctrine. That is exactly what the bishops are discussing, and I don’t believe any of them are heretics. You seem to believe that there is nothing to discuss.

That is an unbelievers mental tool. You dont believe the churchs claim that she does not and cannot change or add to the truth that she got from apostles. You are speaking innacurately. Its not true. To find changes you need to find actual contradictions between present teaching and past. The best you have done is found doctrines that have not changed. You have found a new situation that has had the old doctrine applied as it was (usury which is still wrong) and an old doctrine that only more explicitly taches things you can easily find in the beliefs of the early church. So i believe you have been misled. A heretic is someone who denies a clear teaching of the church. Do you need me to find you the clear teaching here and the denial? If you have a different definition of heresy please show me.

 

[TMC]

No. The difference is that the church not me already believes she has fullness of truth and you believe she does not. yours is based on your own suppositions and not beliefs of the church. that is the difference.

Truly false. The church used to believe that KNOWINGLY rejecting the church after learning she is church of Jesus christ puts you out of the salvation. Guess what? the church still believes so now. The church does not believe today that one can willfully refuse to join her and find salvation please learn the distinction. There is no change in doctrine like you imply. The church has also always believed that grace exists outside her visible borders that is nothing new. If you dont believe me just read about controversies in the early church about baptism outside the church or baptism by heretics. Guess what? the church believed it was true and effective baptism then just as she believes now. So again you have been misled.

The church still believes that leaving or refuing to join her while knowing the truth about who she is puts one out of salvation
The church still believes that all salvation happens through her.
The church still believes that grace operates outside the visible boundaries of the church

You say so but you are speaking innacurately. Its not true. To find changes you need to find actual contradictions between present teaching and past. The best you have done is found doctrines that have not changed. You have found a new situation that has had the old doctrine applied as it was (usury which is still wrong) and an old doctrine that only more explicitly taches things you can easily find in the beliefs of the early church. So i believe you have been misled. A heretic is someone who denies a clear teaching of the church. Do you need me to find you the clear teaching here and the denial? If you have a different definition of heresy please show me.

First, I am astounded that you continue to suggest that many of our bishops and Cardinals are heretics. That statement is simply not supportable or responsible.

As to your blanket statement that doctrine has never changed or developed, you are simply denying that clear developments in Church teaching are developments. How can it be that allowing slavery in the past, and condemning it as always and everywhere evil today is not a development in doctrine? How are the changes to teachings on EENS and usury not developments in doctrine? And you have yet to point me to any Church document that says that doctrine is dead and static or that the Church does not continue to grow toward truth. That is because, as Pope Francis himself put it:
EVANGELII GAUDIUM:

The Church is herself a missionary disciple; she needs to grow in her interpretation of the revealed word and in her understanding of truth.

 

[JesusPeaceLove]

After reading a lot of the posts here about communicating with God, I am curious to know whether anyone considered how the Holy Spirit communicates with the Popes?

I am certain that many of the Holy Fathers had very intimate conversations with the Holy Spirit and that these conversations have been quite clear. Pope St John Paul the Great comes to mind as a prime example. I am certain that the Blessed Mother also communicated directly with him. Unfortunately we are not privy to any of these communications, but given that Jesus promised us that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church and that the gates of hell will not prevail, I am certain there is more going on than we realize.

Given that during my limited experiences in Lectio Divina during Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament I have experienced some amazing communications with the Holy Spirit, I am very certain that communications do exist. Just no burning bushes.

Actually The church is not inspired. Only the apostles were inspired to report on the truth. Once they did that the church preserves and teaches only.

The gift of the church is that when the church is forced to clarify anything of the faith, no falsehood or error can come through that teaching. Therefore we can always rely on the infallible teachings that they are 100% true fpr all time and that is how we keep from error ourselves.

Yes God may speak to some popes. But If the popes are inspired, that falls under private revelation and is the same for the pope or anyone. it must not contradict public revelation or claim to add to it. That is to say, like the church believes in the public revelation God has said ALL that he wants to say to human beings. That is why no more Moses or Elijahs after Jesus. Only a church to teach it to all people because the age of revelation is over.

The poster TMC means something else. He is misled to think the church has a continuing inspiration after apostles where a truth they taught or Jesus taught can be revoked by a new revelation. This simply is not catholicism. It is a radical departure. Hermeneitic of discontinuity like Pope Benedict said. We know which ideas are true or false based on whether they conform to the churchs infallible teaching and that is why God made the church infallible, so that ALL generations could have the same truth the earliest christians had. So that we can always know what is false and stay away from it.

 

[JesusPeaceLove]

First, I am astounded that you continue to suggest that many of our bishops and Cardinals are heretics. That statement is simply not supportable or responsible.

Define many. All I have heard is a very few bishops clearly denying the churchs teaching. And again give me your definition of heresy. I might be applying it wrong perhaps.

As to your blanket statement that doctrine has never changed or developed, you are simply denying that clear developments in Church teaching are developments.

It is you who are making blanket statements. You think just declaring a doctrine has changed is enough to show your points without showing the contradiction there. I have clearly shown that the churchs modern formal teachings are in accord with old ones and there is no contradiction there. You may just claiming things because you may not have read about the early churchs beliefs perhaps. In the church there always some beliefs that may be contradictory to each other and later the church teaches which one is false. But the churchs definition is never NEW or based on anything but the unchanging revelation. It is always based on the deposit in the early church and if you read the declarations the church ALWAYS supports the declarations with the early church teachings. The church just does not invent stuff.

And I am not denying developments. I am denying denial of truths of the past which is what you REALLY mean while baptising it with the misleading label of development.

How can it be that allowing slavery in the past, and condemning it as always and everywhere evil today is not a development in doctrine? How are the changes to teachings on EENS and usury not developments in doctrine? And you have yet to point me to any Church document that says that doctrine is dead and static or that the Church does not continue to grow toward truth. That is because, as Pope Francis himself put it:

You keep pointing to statements about growth in understanding but you are meaning something far more than that which is a departure from the truth already taught and not a growth in the understanding of the same truth. If a rock is still a rock and my teaching is infallible, my understanding of it today cannot deny my understanding of it yesterday. In this case you are wanting to claim that a clear rejection of a certain understanding of marriage by Jesus apostles and church can be revoked today and this supposedly a growth in understanding? No. This is a replacement of the rock with another rock and not a growth in understanding of the same rock.

Slavery was never taught to be moral. Just find me the teaching where the church declares it moral or good and we have ourselves a contradiction.

 

[TMC]

Define many. All I have heard is a very few bishops clearly denying the churchs teaching. And again give me your definition of heresy. I might be applying it wrong perhaps.

I think that accusing any of the bishops of heresy is an astounding statement. Heresy was defined by St. Thomas as “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas.” A more modern definition is “belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine.” I don’t know how many bishops you believe are heretics, but I believe at least half the bishops at the last Synod supported some development of the doctrines being discussed. In any event, accusing bishops of any kind of heresy is pretty serious.

It is you who are making blanket statements. You think just declaring a doctrine has changed is enough to show your points without showing the contradiction there. I have clearly shown that the churchs modern formal teachings are in accord with old ones and there is no contradiction there. You may just claiming things because you may not have read about the early churchs beliefs perhaps. In the church there always some beliefs that may be contradictory to each other and later the church teaches which one is false. But the churchs definition is never NEW or based on anything but the unchanging revelation. It is always based on the deposit in the early church and if you read the declarations the church ALWAYS supports the declarations with the early church teachings. The church just does not invent stuff.

And I am not denying developments. I am denying denial of truths of the past which is what you REALLY mean while baptising it with the misleading label of development. You keep pointing to statements about growth in understanding but you are meaning something far more than that which is a departure from the truth already taught and not a growth in the understanding of the same truth. If a rock is still a rock and my teaching is infallible, my understanding of it today cannot deny my understanding of it yesterday. In this case you are wanting to claim that a clear rejection of a certain understanding of marriage by Jesus apostles and church can be revoked today and this supposedly a growth in understanding? No. This is a replacement of the rock with another rock and not a growth in understanding of the same rock.

Slavery was never taught to be moral. Just find me the teaching where the church declares it moral or good and we have ourselves a contradiction.

OK, so originally you seemed to deny any development of doctrine. Now you admit (as anyone must) that doctrine has developed. But for some reason you think those developments were not really changes or developments… or something. But anyone that knows Church history knows that the Church allowed slavery for centuries. The Pope encouraged slavery in the Papal Bull Dum Diversas (and others) In the US, several diocese even owned slaves. But the Church now condemns slavery as evil. And the Church barred the charging of interest for centuries as always evil, and now allows interest in most circumstances. So those are pretty clear changes - each based not on a change in the Truth, but on a continuing growth in understanding Truth. The Pope has said that growth in understanding is still required. Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals have said the same. Growth and development on the issues being discussed by the Synod may or may not occur, but to say that doctrine cannot grow and develop is incorrect.

 

[Tomdstone]

… the Church has a long history of making changes without technically changing doctrine. That is exactly what the bishops are discussing, and I don’t believe any of them are heretics. …

I agree with this.

 

[JesusPeaceLove]

I think that accusing any of the bishops of heresy is an astounding statement. Heresy was defined by St. Thomas as “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas.” A more modern definition is “belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine.” I don’t know how many bishops you believe are heretics, but I believe at least half the bishops at the last Synod supported some development of the doctrines being discussed. In any event, accusing bishops of any kind of heresy is pretty serious.

Your reading of “half the bishops” is your own. Like I said, only very few bishops have made statements clearly denying the church’s teaching. What are you denying in that? That the church has an orthodox formal teaching on this or that few bisops have denied these teachings? I’m not sure what you are trying to accuse me of.

OK, so originally you seemed to deny any development of doctrine. Now you admit (as anyone must) that doctrine has developed. But for some reason you think those developments were not really changes or developments… or something.

Falsehood. Originally you claimed that the church does not have the full truth. This is what I reject and reject now. The church has fullness of truth. Anyone who claims the contrary is learning their catholiocism from a source other than the catholic church. I have already told you developments are not additions to or denials of this same FULL truth. So your mischaracterization of my positions is amazing. You think the church is continuing to receive new truths i believe with the church that the church already received all truth God wants to comunicate to humans 2000 years ago.

But anyone that knows Church history knows that the Church allowed slavery for centuries. The Pope encouraged slavery in the Papal Bull Dum Diversas (and others) In the US, several diocese even owned slaves. But the Church now condemns slavery as evil. And the Church barred the charging of interest for centuries as always evil, and now allows interest in most circumstances. So those are pretty clear changes - each based not on a change in the Truth, but on a continuing growth in understanding Truth. The Pope has said that growth in understanding is still required. Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals have said the same. Growth and development on the issues being discussed by the Synod may or may not occur, but to say that doctrine cannot grow and develop is incorrect.

More innacurate statements. The church never taught slavery was good.

Early church
The church tolerated the slavery of the Romans the same way the church tolerated that evil government and commanded christians to obey it. However, the church taught christians that there are no slaves or freemen and that christians had moral duties to the humans who served them as slaves. When the church became influential, she imposed so many conditions on the institution that it vanished from christendom in the following centuries. Thus, by “slavery” the church only tolerates conditions of service that must be humane. The church never taught that any human can own another human like property. And even then there were church fathers who severely condemned the practice. Even those like Augustine who spoke what may be called “tolerating it” still noted it as an evil but one that the society in his view did not have a way around.

Chattel slave and middle ages
When that started the church issued numerous bulls condemning it, over 50 statements. When the spanish became hard to please the church negotiated a law that limits the mistreatment of slaved people and gives them rights so they are not property even if the law calls them slaves.

Today
The church tolerates forced servitude under limited circumstances like prisoners and captured soldiers but still insists on humanity of those in those conditions.

So what has changed? The church taught no human can treat another like property and mistreat them in the first century and today. One may use a blanket term “slavery” and mislead readers that the church used to teach that it is good or moral or even true that a person can so own another so complete that he can take away his fundamental rights arbitrarily and that this moral. Never. The church has always taught that the moral truths of Jesus on how humans must treat others are owed to all people, including those under forced servitude.

 

[Brendan_64]

Why? The early Church Fathers were heavily influenced by Greek philosophers, and they were pagans. The Church may transcend this world, but it does not ignore it.

So what revealed truth can come from outside of Christ and the scriptures?

The Church represents the fullness of truth. If there are truths outside of the Church that can influence and mould the Church, then the Church does not already contain the fullness of truth.

St Paul is clear when he says that we should not conform ourselves to this world.

 

[TMC]

Your reading of “half the bishops” is your own. Like I said, only very few bishops have made statements clearly denying the church’s teaching. What are you denying in that? That the church has an orthodox formal teaching on this or that few bisops have denied these teachings? I’m not sure what you are trying to accuse me of.

I am not accusing you of anything, other than pointing out that you are accusing bishops of the Church of being heretics. You have repeated that accusation several times now. None of the bishops are denying Church teaching and I don’t believe any are heretics.

Falsehood. Originally you claimed that the church does not have the full truth. This is what I reject and reject now. The church has fullness of truth. Anyone who claims the contrary is learning their catholiocism from a source other than the catholic church. I have already told you developments are not additions to or denials of this same FULL truth. So your mischaracterization of my positions is amazing. You think the church is continuing to receive new truths i believe with the church that the church already received all truth God wants to comunicate to humans 2000 years ago. More innacurate statements. The church never taught slavery was good.

No human has the full Truth. The Church is continuing to study and reflect to come closer to the truth. This is exactly what the Pope has said in the quote I provided earlier.

As to slavery, it is undeniable that at some periods in the Church’s history slavery was tolerated and considered acceptable (I never said “good”). It is now understood that slavery is always evil in all its forms. That is a development of doctrine.

Early church
The church tolerated the slavery of the Romans the same way the church tolerated that evil government and commanded christians to obey it. However, the church taught christians that there are no slaves or freemen and that christians had moral duties to the humans who served them as slaves. When the church became influential, she imposed so many conditions on the institution that it vanished from christendom in the following centuries. Thus, by “slavery” the church only tolerates conditions of service that must be humane. The church never taught that any human can own another human like property. And even then there were church fathers who severely condemned the practice. Even those like Augustine who spoke what may be called “tolerating it” still noted it as an evil but one that the society in his view did not have a way around.

Chattel slave and middle ages
When that started the church issued numerous bulls condemning it, over 50 statements. When the spanish became hard to please the church negotiated a law that limits the mistreatment of slaved people and gives them rights so they are not property even if the law calls them slaves.

Today
The church tolerates forced servitude under limited circumstances like prisoners and captured soldiers but still insists on humanity of those in those conditions.

So what has changed? The church taught no human can treat another like property and mistreat them in the first century and today. One may use a blanket term “slavery” and mislead readers that the church used to teach that it is good or moral or even true that a person can so own another so complete that he can take away his fundamental rights arbitrarily and that this moral. Never. The church has always taught that the moral truths of Jesus on how humans must treat others are owed to all people, including those under forced servitude.

The Church has always taught the moral truth that we should treat others with kindness and love. But there have been times in Church history that the Church taught that keeping slaves could be consistent with that moral truth. The Church now teaches that slavery can never be consistent with that moral truth. The moral truth that all should be treated with love and respect has not changed. But the doctrine on how that truth applies to forced servitude has changed.

Regardless, you seem intent on denying the obvious development in doctrine on slavery. What about my other examples? Do you also deny that the Church’s teaching on EENS and usury have evolved?

The Church’s teaching on marriage can similarly evolve. (Whether it does remains to be seen, but it can.) Moral truth does not change, but our understanding of truth does grow (hence change). As a result, the Church’s teaching can also grow.

 

[TMC]

So what revealed truth can come from outside of Christ and the scriptures?

The Church represents the fullness of truth. If there are truths outside of the Church that can influence and mould the Church, then the Church does not already contain the fullness of truth.

St Paul is clear when he says that we should not conform ourselves to this world.

I am not sure what you mean by “revealed,” but not all truth is learned through the Church. As I said before, the Church Fathers leaned heavily on Greek philosophy. They recognized that there was value and truth to their work. The advances of science and other studies can also illuminate and contribute to our understanding of the truth. That has nothing to do with “conforming,” it has to do with searching for deeper meaning.

 

[JesusPeaceLove]

I am not accusing you of anything, other than pointing out that you are accusing bishops of the Church of being heretics. You have repeated that accusation several times now. None of the bishops are denying Church teaching and I don’t believe any are heretics.

My statements are not baseless but apparently you think mere fearmongering or vague guilt-tripping is enough to shut someone up if you can’t actually use truth to show they speak falsely.

No human has the full Truth. The Church is continuing to study and reflect to come closer to the truth. This is exactly what the Pope has said in the quote I provided earlier.

The church is not any “human”. The church is the representative of Christ on earth and she has the fullness of Truth. Your lack of belief in the churchs profession is quite telling and explains why you think it is possible for the church to contradict herself. Do you believe in the churchs infallibility?

As to slavery, it is undeniable that at some periods in the Church’s history slavery was tolerated and considered acceptable (I never said “good”). It is now understood that slavery is always evil in all its forms. That is a development of doctrine.

Please feel free to cite the church teaching in question. You merely typing “its undeniable” does not in fact make it so. When we had persons in the church speak favourably on slavery we had others denounce it. So how did you decide that those who spoke favourably represented the church teaching and those who denounced it did not? Just because it is more helpful to your argument to insist that the catholic church has taught error is not enough to turn this into a fact. I shall be awaiting for the magisterial teaching to which you refer the next time you post, if you don’t mind.

The Church has always taught the moral truth that we should treat others with kindness and love. But there have been times in Church history that the Church taught that keeping slaves could be consistent with that moral truth. The Church now teaches that slavery can never be consistent with that moral truth. The moral truth that all should be treated with love and respect has not changed. But the doctrine on how that truth applies to forced servitude has changed.

If the church has always taught the moral truth on human beings intrinsic equality and proper treatment, then the church has never affirmed slavery which contains both false teachings that some humans are inferior or that they have no rights that natural law gives to all. What you are trying to force as a contrary teaching is a centuries long debate that was never settled one way or another and for which we have church fathers on either position. So again feel free to find the magisterial teaching that the church’s present teaching contradicts.

Regardless, you seem intent on denying the obvious development in doctrine on slavery. What about my other examples? Do you also deny that the Church’s teaching on EENS and usury have evolved?

Obvious only to you, not to the catholic church which unabashedly proclaims that she has not taught error EVER, not once in 2,000 years. Your claim that usuary and the church’s teaching on salvation has changed were answered. Just you claiming a change in teaching is not enough. You seem not to get that. Find the two contradictory teachings and then talk…demonstrate your claims. Dont just expect that your claims that fly in the face of the churchs teaching are just enough because you need it in order to argue that you are justified in expecting the church to contradict herself, the apostles and Jesus himself when it comes to marriage.

The Church’s teaching on marriage can similarly evolve. (Whether it does remains to be seen, but it can.) Moral truth does not change, but our understanding of truth does grow (hence change). As a result, the Church’s teaching can also grow.

The churchs teaching cannot and will never evolve in the direction of contradicting her old teachings. You have tried all you can and cannot find a single contradictory teaching of the catholic church to justify this belief that you are fine denying the churchs infallibility and the fullness of truth she contains. If you dont believe the catholic church about the catholic church, from where exactly are you getting your ideas about who the catholic church is? Who is your teacher? Just curious.