The Deposit of Faith - can it be changed?

[Eddie18]

I’ve noticed there are many in these forums who seem to believe the Deposit of Faith can somehow be changed. It’s time to set the record straight!

Definition from “A Catholic Dictionary”:
Deposit of Faith - "That body of revelation, containing truths to be believed and principles of conduct, which was given by Christ to the Apostles, to be preserved by them and their successors, with the guarantee of infallibility, for the guidance of the Church. It embraces the truths of both Scripture and Tradition. Some of its articles are explicit in Scripture, e.g. the Word was made flesh; and others are implicit, e.g. the Immaculate Conception. It closed with the death of the last surviving apostle. It is entrusted to the infallible magisterium of the Church to preserve, unfold and defend the deposit. The word is found in 1 Tim VI, 20, Depositum custodi, “Keep safe what has been entrusted to thee…”

Proclaiming a Universal Jubile, Cum Summi, Encyclical of Pope Clement XIV, 1769
“… Wherefore, We lament that the destruction of souls is propagated more widely each day. Accordingly you must work all the harder and exercise diligence and authority to repel this audacity and insanity which stalks even divine and most holy matters. Be confident that you will accomplish this by simplicity of sound doctrine and by the word of God which penetrates more than any two-edged sword. You will easily be able to contain the attack of enemies and blunt their weapons when in all your sermons you preach and present Jesus Christ crucified. By His own laws and institutions He founded and reenforced this holy city which is His Church. To it he entrusted, as it were, the deposit of faith in Him to be preserved piously and without contamination. He wished it to be the bulwark of His teaching and truth against which the gates of hell would never prevail. We, therefore, the overseers and guardians of this holy city, must preserve the magnificent heritage of Our laws and faith which has been passed down intact to Us; We must transmit it pure and sound to our successors. If We direct all our actions to this norm found in sacred scripture and moreover cling to the footsteps of our ancestors, We will be best equipped to avoid whatever could weaken and destroy the faith of the Christian people and loosen in any way the unity of the Church…. “

First Vatican Council, 1870
“For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

 

[Eddie18]

Additional quotes:

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950
“…And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith – Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition – to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly “to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,”[2] is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist…”

Pope Clement XIII, On the Dangers of Anti-Christian Writings, 1766
“…It is principally your duty to stand as a wall so that no foundation can be laid other than the one that is already laid. Watch over the most holy deposit of faith to whose protection you committed yourselves on oath at your solemn consecration. Reveal to the faithful the wolves which are demolishing the Lord’s vineyard….”

Pope St. Pius X, Oath against Modernism, 1910
“I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.”

Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (Appealing for Peace), 1914
"Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: “Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down.”

 

[godisgood77]

No, the Deposit of Faith does not change.

However, our understanding of it most certainly does. It deepens as our knowledge and experiences deepen.

See Blessed John Henry Newman’s essay on the development of doctrine.

 

[Maximilian75]

I’ve heard it compared to a warehouse full of furniture- When the lights are off, you know there’s stuff there - you just don’t know what. As lights gradually turn on, you see couches and tables and chairs, etc

 

[hymin]

“The gates are shut — they are not opened to any and every one; not every one who will shall enter, unless he also believes according to the true Faith. The Sovereign’s court is kept under guard.” (St. Ambrose, Exposition of the Christian Faith, 4, 2, 15)

 

[Eddie18]

@(name removed by moderator) @godisgood77 Implicit doctrines that have yet to be defined is one thing, but what about doctrines clearly defined all along throughout the centuries? Are you saying our understanding of the Deposit of Faith can change so drastically that we can go from:

• “Outside the Church there is no salvation” to “other religions are also acceptable”?
• A strict condemnation of ‘prayer in common’ with non-Catholics, to highly recommending doing so?
• Requiring conversion to Catholicism, then to no longer requiring conversion?

So you’re saying our understanding can lead us to a completely contrary conclusion on doctrines the Catholic Church has taught for 20 centuries?

 

[godisgood77]

No, I’m not going to the absolute extremes that you mention. Although all of those situations you mention have nuances that make is less cut and dry than the few sentences you wrote.

However, we do grow in understanding over time. This has been the case since the beginning. And yes, at times we will learn something new and admit mistakes in previous judgments. This too has been consistent from the start.

 

[Mtdobbs]

Agreed. The deposit of Faith cannot be changed, but it has been explained more richly and the truths have been expanded and deepened. Our understanding of the mysteries of God have been expanded on thanks to many holy men and women of God. Things that have been approved and accepted by the Church, over the centuries, are ordered to our good but they do not change the deposit of faith but they can help expand ourunderstanding.

 

[Genesis315]

• “Outside the Church there is no salvation” to “other religions are also acceptable”?
• A strict condemnation of ‘prayer in common’ with non-Catholics, to highly recommending doing so?
• Requiring conversion to Catholicism, then to no longer requiring conversion?

The first and third are the same, but you misstate them. “Other religions are also acceptable” is not our doctrine. Likewise, if “requires conversion” means be formally Catholic, that has also never been the case. We acknowledge that people in other religions may also be saved (the errors in them are not acceptable, but excusable in certain cases). The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church is implicit, and therefore was developed from, the dogmas concerning the necessity of baptism, that the Church is identified by common profession of faith and heriarchical communion, and that the sins that therefore make one not the Church–heresy, schism, and apostasy–are mortal sins.

However, the Church also always acknowledged that God offers the grace of salvation to all men, and yet there have been places where it is physically or morally impossible for the Church to reach. Likewise, the Church has also acknowledged that desire can suffice when baptism can likewise not be received. The development is how these three truths work together–that, is, how those who respond to that grace sent, but yet cannot be formally incorporated into the Church, may still belong in a manner sufficient for salvation.

There has never been a condemnation that common prayer is per se sinful. What makes it sinful would be if one or more conditions are met: the prayer contains error, such prayer would signify a public profession of belonging to the separated group, or there were the danger of scandal or religious indifferentism (that is it would lead one to believe religious differences don’t matter). The pastors of the Church tended to issue blanket prohibitions because historically such common prayer did almost always entail all those things.

The Church still forbids common prayer when those conditions are present.

However, common prayer in the context of ecumenism–seeking the reunion of separated Christian communities–is different. The whole point of such prayer is that we are not united and that is a problem and the prayer is to seek the grace of unity. Therefore, by definition, one is not making a public profession of belonging to the other group and one is not declaring that the separation does not matter. Common prayer is not new to reunion efforts (seen, for example, at the reunion councils).

 

[Eddie18]

The first and third bullets are certainly related but different, I probably just could have worded them better. I was referring to 1) now being able to be saved outside the church, and 2) the removal of the need for conversion and/or saying that proselytism is a sin.

Yes, baptism of desire has always been taught by the Catholic Church, but it is the exception to the rule and never assumed, so that’s not what I’m speaking of in this thread.

Regarding prayer in common, it has been repeatedly condemned throughout the history of the Church with severe consequences, and no conditions applied. For example:

• “It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.” 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258
• Commentary on Canon Law (Augustine, 1918): Canon 2315: The Code declares the following persons as suspect of heresy: 1. The propagators of heresy and those who participate with non-Catholics in divinis. Also Canon 2316: “Those who communicate with heretics in divinis are themselves suspect of heresy”
• “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion” - III Council of Constantinople.
• “None must neither pray or sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergyman or layman, let him be excommunicated” - Council of Carthage, 398

Certainly these declarations are part of the Deposit of Faith. Why then, do we see the Assisi meetings being held for the last 4 decades encouraging the exact opposite?

 

[Genesis315]

“Proselytism” being frowned upon has to do with the change of the connotation of the word from being a synonym with evangelization to imply “using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel” (to quote the Church) such as coercion or deception–basically seeking converts by any means. The Church has always condemned such methods–conversion always needed to be a free act of the intellect and will of the convert. You do identify a real problem though: there has been confusion about the Church’s missionary mandate in recent times–including the reasons for it–so much so that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had to publish a Doctrinal Note in December 2007 reminding us that the Church’s doctrine does still proclaim the need to evangelize with the aim of conversion and salvation for others.

Those canons you provide regarding prayer are predicated on the underlying principles I noted above. That’s why someone who did so was only suspect of heresy, rather than the sin itself being heresy. Common prayer did not per se mean a public profession of the false religion, but, given the circumstances, it likely did. Again, these things were permitted well before Vatican II on a more exceptional basis, whereas there is no exception for intrinsically evil acts. It should also be pointed out that common prayer between the baptized is qualitatively different than common prayer with non-Christians.

That brings us to the Assisi events. Granted, I am mostly familiar with the original event (I assume the rest are the same), but those are also not examples of the common prayer that is per se condemned i mentioned in my prior post, but there was some disagreement as to the risk of scandal of indifferentism in those. Praying in the same place (at Assisi they tended to be in different buildings or rooms, if I recall) for the same ends, is not the same as common liturgical prayer which implies a common profession of faith. In those cases, the Pope explicitly ruled out in his opening address any indifferentist or syncretist motivations or implications, and explicitly stated to all participants that “in Jesus Christ, as Saviour of all, true peace is to be found.” Again, the prayer to God for a good purpose (in this case, no war) offered by a non-Christian is not a sin. Neither is a Catholic praying for the same end, even if in the same location. This happens all the time outside abortion clinics, for example. There is no problem there. Common liturgical prayer together with non-Christians becomes more problematic. As even Cardinal Kasper has said in this context (in 2007) “Christians and the followers of other religions can pray, but cannot pray together. Every form of syncretism is to be excluded.”

That being said, despite the Pope’s admonitions, given the images broadcast around the world (and other abuses that may have taken places there), I tend to agree with those (including Cardinal Ratzinger at the time) who saw too much of a risk of scandal in it. The Pope judged otherwise. But it wasn’t per se contrary to the natural law or the divine law.

 

[Dovekin]

Faith can change so drastically that we can go from:

• “Outside the Church there is no salvation” to “other religions are also acceptable”?
• A strict condemnation of ‘prayer in common’ with non-Catholics, to highly recommending doing so?
• Requiring conversion to Catholicism, then to no longer requiring conversion?

If you don’t mind, I will address a revised form of your first remark:

• ”Outside the Church there is no salvation” to“many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.” (LG 8)

My principal concern is your use of “other religions,” which means non-Christian religions but often is used to mean other Christian denominations. The issues are similar, but it is easier to address other Christians first. Besides, it contrasts 2 things actually taught by the Church!

The situation of the Church changed dranatically between the years 1302 and 1965. In 1302, Church and state were overlapping entities, with everyone as a member of the Church and also a member of a country. (Broad strokes, exceptions existed) The Pope, to preserve that reality, ‘encouraged’ Royalty to remain loyal to Rome, whose universal spiritual reality took precedence over the national royal authority.

Then the Reformation happened, and those ideas fell apart. “Cuius regio huius religio” became the de facto rule, as the king believes is the religion. The Church no longer had a universal presence as countries and regions left. Rome continued to fight to the earlier fight.

Several hundred years passed. The Holy Roman Empire degenerated into the Third Reich. Countries became less interested in a universal authority and more interested in empowering the weakest.

At V2 the Church made a move to reassert her universality. “Outside the Church many elements exist… that belong to the Church.” In recognizing the de facto schisms and political boundaries had split up the Church, V2 reasserted that the universal reality of the Church persisted, although in forms they considered “deficient.”

Recognizing our common baptism, the Church now encourages us to pray together to Our Father. When a baptized person joins the Catholic Church, it is not like the conversion of the unbaptized. In some cases, respect for the elements of holiness in another Church calls on us not to try and convert other Christians.