Unchanging?

[larry85704]

Well, well

What is right and wrong does change. If you don’t believe this you are living in different world than me. Can you explain the ability of the Pope to speak infallibly if right and wrong does not change? Why would he need to? Wouldn’t this be a form of modern public revelation?

How about this. In the Bible it states that a child born out of wedlock is not going to heaven. And his children for many generations are likewise treated, if that wasn’t enough. Have things changed? I hope so.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, well

What is right and wrong does change. If you don’t believe this you are living in different world than me. Can you explain the ability of the Pope to speak infallibly if right and wrong does not change? Why would he need to? Wouldn’t this be a form of modern public revelation?

The Pope doesn’t change doctrines or introduce anything new when he speaks infallibly.

What he does at that time is he clarifies and defines doctrines that have been held right from the very beginning, but which for some reason in these times have become less well understood, or have come to be doubted by some.

He doesn’t come up with stuff that nobody’s ever heard of before.

How about this. In the Bible it states that a child born out of wedlock is not going to heaven. And his children for many generations are likewise treated, if that wasn’t enough. Have things changed? I hope so.

First, where is that in the Bible? I don’t think it says anything like that; I think that you have misunderstood something.

Second, Christianity is based on the forgiveness of sins. A Christian is a sinner who has repented and been forgiven. We don’t reject sinners; if we did we would lose 100% of our membership.

Third, it is not the child’s sin that he was born out of wedlock, and has never been considered to be. If children born out of wedlock were denied opportunities for education or jobs in the relatively recent past, it was not because anybody thought they themselves had sinned, but because it was generally assumed that they had not received a good upbringing or proper home training. This has changed with the advent of compulsory public education, which puts all children on the same footing, regardless of their home background.

 

[Chancellare]

Well, well

What is right and wrong does change. If you don’t believe this you are living in different world than me. Can you explain the ability of the Pope to speak infallibly if right and wrong does not change? Why would he need to? Wouldn’t this be a form of modern public revelation?

Shouldn’t this statement be: it’s the poeple who change, not the teachings of right and wrong?

How about this. In the Bible it states that a child born out of wedlock is not going to heaven. And his children for many generations are likewise treated, if that wasn’t enough. Have things changed? I hope so.

In a morally relativistic society such as ours, there is a permeating difficulty to accept absolute truths especially those to live by. To say that what is right and wrong is changing is the expedient thing to think. If you live in such an environment you will always look for minute details around you to prove your point.

 

[larry85704]

Ok, the Bible verse that condemns illegitimate children is Deuteronomy 23. Now I know that is pretty old and I am aware of many places where it is seemingly contradicted, but it is there.

I agree that the Pope doesn’t come up with stuff no one has ever heard of before and that Papal Infallibility is not widely used. It is no big deal, or is it? I would like to think that right and wrong never changes and that there are absolutes. But then, absolutes can not change in location or in time. This concept would force the Church to be in a very sticky situation. The Church would have to defend it’s history. Bad idea.

The Church, last time I asked, acknowledges sin exists. Confession is there for forgiveness. Forgiveness is not automatically given just because you are sorry. I question our modern understanding of Confession. Confession was much different in the early Church. Confession came into being to allow ex-communicated people to get back into the Church. Originally I don’t think Confession was required for sins short of ex-communication.

I believe there are moral laws, I even think I know two or three. I also believe that these moral laws have a natural punishment associated with them. The Church, God, or Sister Mary Jane does not have to punish you for breaking these laws, you punish yourself by breaking the law. I also believe these moral laws have existed for eternity and that God, as well as you and me, is bound by them.

 

[adrift]

Ok, the Bible verse that condemns illegitimate children is Deuteronomy 23. Now I know that is pretty old and I am aware of many places where it is seemingly contradicted, but it is there.

How about this. In the Bible it states that a child born out of wedlock is not going to heaven. And his children for many generations are likewise treated, if that wasn’t enough. Have things changed? I hope so.
Reply With Quote

Deuteronomy 23

No child of an incestuous union may be admitted into the community of the LORD, nor any descendant of his even to the tenth generation.

A misinterpretation of the quoted verse which is not talking about heaven but about the community of the Jewish People and how to make them pure. It wasn’t illegitimate children but a child born of an incestuous union. There is no change in morals but about a discipline much like eating meat on Friday.

 

[jmcrae]

Deuteronomy 23

A misinterpretation of the quoted verse which is not talking about heaven but about the community of the Jewish People and how to make them pure. It wasn’t illegitimate children but a child born of an incestuous union. There is no change in morals but about a discipline much like eating meat on Friday.

Yes, exactly. Also, the reason that children of incestuous unions would not have been allowed to join the Levitical priesthood would be because of the disabilities that tend to appear in such children, such as mental retardation, deafness, and so on.

His descendants would also inherit the same disabilities, which would be why they, too, would be barred from the priesthood.

This child would have needed to be cared for by the community, probably for his entire life - there is little chance that he could ever become a leader of the community in any meaningful way - especially since in the times of Deuteronomy we are speaking of a tribal, nomadic community that doesn’t have very much in the way of technological aids.

 

[jmcrae]

I believe there are moral laws, I even think I know two or three. I also believe that these moral laws have a natural punishment associated with them. The Church, God, or Sister Mary Jane does not have to punish you for breaking these laws, you punish yourself by breaking the law. I also believe these moral laws have existed for eternity and that God, as well as you and me, is bound by them.

How does the Church punish anyone for their sins? I have never seen such a thing. Instead, what I see is the Church helping people deal effectively with the consequences of their sins, and help them to become better people in the end. The Church doesn’t actually have to do this. Most of these people are total strangers to the community who only first showed up when they needed help.

If a total stranger showed up at your door and demanded money, you’d probably throw him out on his head. But the Church doesn’t do that - instead, they not only give the person money, they also help the person get to the root problem of why they have no money, and help them to gain the life skills that they need to achieve their goals and have a bright future.

Do you see these programs of the Church as “punishments”? Because I don’t - I see them as the Church’s way of being Christ’s hands and feet in the world, lifting up the downtrodden and helping them stand on their own two feet, and become good people.

I went to Confession just the other night, and I didn’t receive any kind of a punishment, either - I received the assurance of forgiveness, the Absolution, and I was told of a simple action that I must take to restore my relationship with God and with other human beings. That’s not a punishment for my sins; that’s a remedy for my sins.

 

[fix]

I agree that the Pope doesn’t come up with stuff no one has ever heard of before and that Papal Infallibility is not widely used. It is no big deal, or is it? I would like to think that right and wrong never changes and that there are absolutes. But then, absolutes can not change in location or in time. This concept would force the Church to be in a very sticky situation. The Church would have to defend it’s history. Bad idea.

Which moral truths have changed?

 

[larry85704]

In my understanding moral truths have not changed. But what is this topic discussing, moral truth or Church teaching? Many would argue they are the same. Church teaching has changed but many people do not want to admit it. The Church’s understanding of things has changed. Consider the understanding of purgatory or the current lack of the hell and damnation sermons of the 1950’s. Sure, go ahead, tell me the Church’s teaching doesn’t change. Now how about morality? Can you argue the really important Church teaching haven’t changed? Well, define an unimportant teaching. Hard to do. Especially considering the old out of favor teaching on purgatory is what paid for the church building of the middle ages. Lots of poor people contributed to those churches.

I liked the response about the Church helping people. Right on.

 

[jmcrae]

Especially considering the old out of favor teaching on purgatory is what paid for the church building of the middle ages. Lots of poor people contributed to those churches.

I thought the complaint was that the rich were buying their way into Heaven? Now it’s the poor who were paying for this, all along?

Anyway - the understanding of Purgatory has not changed. But how outsiders misunderstand it is changing all the time.

I liked the response about the Church helping people. Right on.

Thanks!!

 

[larry85704]

I think the idea of buying ones way into heaven was never part of Catholic teaching. Of course, I could be wrong.

When I was young I was told about an indulgence that, if you did something, a priest would be there when you died. Anybody remember that?

What I find unacceptable is the way you are presenting the truth. You say the Church’s teaching on purgatory hasn’t changed, and for all I know you were right. But the practices of the Church concerning purgatory certainly have. I find it hard to separate practices from teachings. When I was young I was told that I could reduce my time in purgatory by years if I did something. So, I did it. Now purgatory is a place where our souls are purified and nobody is saying how long it takes. I guess the Church was blowing smoke up my rear about all those years I prayed away, huh? Why not admit it, the Church changes its teachings.

 

[jmcrae]

I think the idea of buying ones way into heaven was never part of Catholic teaching. Of course, I could be wrong.

When I was young I was told about an indulgence that, if you did something, a priest would be there when you died. Anybody remember that?

What I find unacceptable is the way you are presenting the truth. You say the Church’s teaching on purgatory hasn’t changed, and for all I know you were right. But the practices of the Church concerning purgatory certainly have. I find it hard to separate practices from teachings. When I was young I was told that I could reduce my time in purgatory by years if I did something. So, I did it. Now purgatory is a place where our souls are purified and nobody is saying how long it takes. I guess the Church was blowing smoke up my rear about all those years I prayed away, huh? Why not admit it, the Church changes its teachings.

The thing with the years never had anything to do with “time off” of Purgatory. The reason the years have been taken off now is that there were so many people who thought that’s what it was about.

What the years referred to was the number of years in sack-cloth and ashes would have been imposed as your Penance by the Apostles and the Bishops in the Early Church in order to gain the same amount of grace and humility as is given to the souls in Purgatory when we pray these prayers. But since most people today can’t really relate to that (and since so many people in recent times had totally misunderstood it) they took off the number of years.

Purgatory always was part of the afterlife, and we never did know how (or even whether) they measure time there.

The reason our way of teaching changes is because each generation is coming at this from a different perspective. We live in a very “post-Christian” culture, today, so we have to keep it simple and direct, and get rid of anything that makes it confusing, that isn’t actually necessary. I mean, it’s interesting to know what kinds of penances the Apostles used to impose. But if it confuses people into thinking they’re getting “time off” from Purgatory, then it doesn’t make sense to include the information in the Indulgence itself, because it’s not “core information,” if you know what I mean.

 

[adrift]

When I was young I was told about an indulgence that, if you did something, a priest would be there when you died. Anybody remember that?

It was not an indulgence.

Our Lord appeared to St. Margaret Mary and revealed devotions to His Sacred Heart. She was favoured with many apparitions, the most special ones took place between 1673 and 1675…I promise you, in the excessive mercy of my heart that my all-powerful love will grant to all those who receive Holy Communion on the First Friday for nine consecutive months, the grace of final repentance; they shall not die in my disgrace nor without receiving the sacraments; my divine Heart shall be their safe refuge in that last moment."

1. I will give them all the graces necessary for their state in life.

1. I will give peace in their families.

1. I will console them in all their troubles.

1. They shall find in My Heart an assured refuge during life and especially at the hour of death.

1. I will pour abundant blessings on all their undertakings.

1. Sinners shall find in My Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy.

1. Tepid souls shall become fervent.

1. Fervent souls shall speedily rise to great perfection.

1. I will bless the homes in which the image of My Sacred Heart shall be exposed and honoured.

1. I will give to priests the power to touch the most hardened hearts.

1. Those who propagate this devotion shall have their name written in My Heart, and it shall never be effaced.

1. The all-powerful love of My Heart will grant to all those who shall receive Communion on the First Friday of nine consecutive months the grace of final repentance; they shall not die under My displeasure, nor without receiving their Sacraments; My Heart shall be their assured refuge at the last hour

 

[fix]

In my understanding moral truths have not changed. But what is this topic discussing, moral truth or Church teaching? Many would argue they are the same. Church teaching has changed but many people do not want to admit it.

That is a broad statement. The Church is custodian. She does not invent or change any teachings that are given to us from Christ. She has the authority to issue disciplines like abstaining from meat, but She has never changed any doctrine.

The Church’s understanding of things has changed.

They may grow deeper. But, they do not reverse.

Consider the understanding of purgatory or the current lack of the hell and damnation sermons of the 1950’s. Sure, go ahead, tell me the Church’s teaching doesn’t change. Now how about morality? Can you argue the really important Church teaching haven’t changed? Well, define an unimportant teaching. Hard to do. Especially considering the old out of favor teaching on purgatory is what paid for the church building of the middle ages. Lots of poor people contributed to those churches.

This is confusing. What “change” in that teaching are you referring to?

 

[Digger71]

Actually, I have a question.

I know the Church claims to be infallible on matters spiritual and moral, but I am actually wondering why this caveat on infallibility exists.

Specifically…

1. When was the doctrine of infallibility established
2. Did it always exclude the physical
3. if ‘no’ to 2, when did the physical get excluded?

I have in mind Galileo…and the great retreat over geocentralism.

 

[otjm]

Actually, I have a question.

I know the Church claims to be infallible on matters spiritual and moral, but I am actually wondering why this caveat on infallibility exists.

Specifically…

1. When was the doctrine of infallibility established
2. Did it always exclude the physical
3. if ‘no’ to 2, when did the physical get excluded?

I have in mind Galileo…and the great retreat over geocentralism.

The Church claims infallibility in matters of morals and doctrine. It does not claim infallibility in physical matters. Much of the issue of the universe/sun and planets dust-up was a simplistic understanding of the universe perceived through the lens of the theological implications and how they might relate to creation/God/Christ.

The fact is that some perceived that the creation of the world and Salvation History placed the earth at the center of creation, since God brought Salvation history to bear upon earth. They could not separate physical location (the earth as the center of the universe) from spiritual location (God creating the universe, including the world, and siting salvation on the earth through men and ultimately through Christ).

The issue of doctrine - that God created the universe, that man is His highest creation, that Christ is both God and man - did not change. What changed was what impact, if any, a heliocentric world had on that doctrine. They saw it as an attack on the doctrine (which it wasn’t). It actually had no impact whatsoever on the doctrine, except perhaps to show that God set forth the laws by which the whole universe stays in place/motion - which only confirms creation.

So they were right about doctrine (God created the universe) but were wrong to assume that meant that the earth had, therefore, to be the center of the universe. Being at the center, or somewhere between the center and the periphery, or on the periphery, has no impact on the doctrine at all.

What needs to be understood is that the whole knowledge base at that time was miniscule compared to today. We often fail to realize what it meant to live in a world where astronomy was pretty much left to the unaided eye, with no mathematical model that explains the observations of movement of the stars and planets.

 

[Digger71]

The Church claims infallibility in matters of morals and doctrine…

With respect, that answers none of my questions.

I think it was pope Paul IV who said heliocentricity was … “absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theologic point of view, at least, opposed to the true faith”

I think, but am not sure, that it was infallibly claimed that the sun went around the earth.

 

[jmcrae]

I think it was pope Paul IV who said heliocentricity was … “absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theologic point of view, at least, opposed to the true faith”

What is your source for this quotation?

I think, but am not sure, that it was infallibly claimed that the sun went around the earth.

This is extremely unlikely.

 

[adrift]

With respect, that answers none of my questions.

I think it was pope Paul IV who said heliocentricity was … “absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theologic point of view, at least, opposed to the true faith”

I think, but am not sure, that it was infallibly claimed that the sun went around the earth.

This is incorrect.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=315562&Forums=3&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=Galileo&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=18&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

The Church ordered Galileo not to preach the heliocentric theory as proven truth (as it was not in his time) but only as a theory, but he persisted in teaching it as certain truth, when it was not yet certain. You are certainly right that the Church has no authority to decide on scientific theories, which is why Pope John Paul II apologized for the Church’s treatment of Galileo. My latest book, THE CLEAVING OF CHRISTENDOM, has a full documented account of the entire Galileo case. You may obtain it from Christendom Press in Front Royal, Virginia by calling toll-free 1-800-698-6649, or at your local library by inter-library loan. - Dr. Carroll

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=329013&Forums=3&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=Galileo&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=19&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

No, the man who developed the heliocentric theory was Copernicus, a Polish monk, and contrary to frequent lies by enemies of the Church, the Church never taught that it was false, though it did treat Galileo badly. That is what Pope John Paul II apologized for. There is a full documented account of the Galileo case in my latest book, THE CLEAVING OF CHRISTEHDOM, which you may obtain from Christendom Press in Front Royal, Virginia by calling toll-free 1-800-698-6649, or at your local library by inter-library loan. - Dr. Carroll

At the time the Church accepted

 

[Digger71]

It’s from a project Gutrenburg site.

gutenberg.org/dirs/etext96/hwswt10.txt

But this seems appropriate abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitec06.html

The reading shows the the Church infallibly declared that the sun went around the earth, a claim that is not made today.

So in this example at least we seem to have a Church doctrine that has changed.