What changed in 500 years?

[ROBAUTEN]

A LOT HAS CHANGED - BUT NOT CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
The Reformers and their spiritual descendents have continued to change and split almost logrithmicly. The Catholic Church did correct the discipline of the sale of indulgences without changing the doctrine about the legitamacy of it (if you give alms or a tithe or give a $ offering to the work of the church it is still universally believed to be a meritorious thing - and therefore a potentially indulgenced good work). Other abuses were corrected too.

Moreover there has come about in Catholicism an appreciation of the value of many of M. Luther’s important driving principles: the importance of a personal faith; the sovereignty of God and the absolute dependance upon his grace alone for inital justification/salvation (as S. Augustine taught); the value and supremacy of scripture. A great book by Louis Boyer highlights the great good along with the bad in Luther’s theology. There is a growing respect between Evangelicals and Catholics; there is a growing realization that much of the disagreement about sola fide was and is just semantics: Protestants now talk about the necessity of a “faith that works”, or a “true faith”, or a “faith that is not without works” or a “faith alone but not a faith that is alone” etc. etc… too bad they just can’t admit the “alone” part of sola fide is problematic, when replacing the orthodox/biblical “salvation by grace through faith and not as a result of works but unto good works”. It (alone) is and was just too misleading - as if there was no necessity of adding our obedience / good works once the free gift of grace has been received through faith and baptism.

Its been a long time since the major wars of religion in Europe between Catholics and Protestants - maybe with a change in attitudes there is now hope for reconcilliation.

Officially the Vatican council acknowledged that Protestants who are baptized in the Trinitarian formulae are Christians and our brothers and sisters and even in some way joined to the Catholic Church. Also that the Spirit works in their communions…these are significant changes…but not in doctrine.

 

[RobHom]

The Reformed Protestants fragmented in a multitude of exclusionary beliefs even in the reformers lifetimes. So five centuries later they would probably be barely recognizable by their founders. Would Luther agree with the Lutheran church on ordination of women and on the blessing of homosexual unions? Would Zwingli agree with Baptists on the baptism of infants?

Frankly…I think that were Luther and Zwingli to come back to life today and see what has happened…they would go mad, over the edge…with guilt and rage over what has happened.

The Catholic Church on the other hand still teaches what the Apostles taught, now as 2000 years ago.

And therein lies the essential difference between “us” and “they”.

 

[Reformed]

Thanks for all the posts. I did a quick review and have to leave again. The main point that I wanted to verify is that doctrinally, Roman Catholicism has not change.

My main driving force is really for the Protestants on this site. If Roman Catholic doctrine has not changed, why should I pursue an ecumenical agenda?

 

[VARC]

Obviously! The doctrines of the Catholic Church never change, unlike Protestant religions.

Limbo was just sent to the doctrinal scrap heap. Perhaps indulgences will be next.

 

[mattkubes]

Limbo was just sent to the doctrinal scrap heap. Perhaps indulgences will be next.

Limbo, you mean the theological speculation? That has never been doctrine…Trent, on the other hand, made the definition of indulgences very clear (in response to the Reformers’ claims, no doubt).

 

[LilyM]

Limbo was just sent to the doctrinal scrap heap. Perhaps indulgences will be next.

Limbo was never NEVER doctrine. It was not sent to the scrapheap either - we’re still free to believe in it.

 

[VARC]

Limbo, you mean the theological speculation? That has never been doctrine…Trent, on the other hand, made the definiteion of indulgences very clear.

That “theolgical speculation” was taught and believed by every Roman bishop in the world for centuries. It was in every catechism including the baltimore catechism and the catechism of Pius X. If that doctrine can be labeled as “speculation” after so many years of institutionalized Roman instruction, I don’t see why indulgences can’t be labeled speculation after the fact either.

 

[adstrinity]

I disagree with your initial premise. The split was political, not doctrinal.

 

[ROBAUTEN]

If Roman Catholic doctrine has not changed, why should I pursue an ecumenical agenda?

For love.
For unity.
For union with the one Church.
For the sake of Christian witness to the world.
For historical continuity with the Church & faith of all ages.
For a contemporary source of divine teaching authority in your life.
For an end to the proliferation of many new & heretical doctrines.
For a greater understanding of your Catholic Christian brothers.
For an acceptable sacrifice (body and blood of Christ) to God.
For a truly good and blessed spiritual mother.
For all of the truth committed to the saints.
For the communion of Saints.
For the current culture war.
For the great commission.

And to resist the one who sows discord among the bretheren.

 

[LilyM]

That “theolgical speculation” was taught and believed by every Roman bishop in the world for centuries. It was in every catechism including the baltimore catechism and the catechism of Pius X. If that doctrine can be labeled as “speculation” after so many years of institutionalized Roman instruction, I don’t see why indulgences can’t be labeled speculation after the fact either.

And for 1000 years ‘EVERY ROMAN BISHOP’ would’ve taught that it was fine for Latin priests to be married, such would’ve been in every catechism as well.

For the past 1,000 years or so, on the other hand, the precise opposite, priestly celibacy, has been Church teaching and practice.

And tomorrow it could reverse again, married priests could again be our practice and belief, and stay that way for another 1,000 years.

Simply put, not every teaching or belief is doctrinal or permanently binding in nature.

 

[mattkubes]

That “theolgical speculation” was taught and believed by every Roman bishop in the world for centuries. It was in every catechism including the baltimore catechism and the catechism of Pius X. If that doctrine can be labeled as “speculation” after so many years of institutionalized Roman instruction, I don’t see why indulgences can’t be labeled speculation after the fact either.

And to supplement what LilyM said re: disciplines in the Catechism…

I knew we’d get to the old Catechisms - unfortuantely for your case, the mention of something in the Catechism does not make that thing infallible. We Catholics recognise that Catechisms, in and of themselves, are not infallible. Are there infallible teachings IN the Catechism? Yes. But to sort those out, you need to look at the Church councils and other documents. You can keep saying it all day, but Limbo was simply never a doctrine.

Edit - If you’d like to read more about this, please go here:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

 

[Peter_J]

I disagree with your initial premise. The split was political, not doctrinal.

Have you read Exsurge Domine, the bull which condemned Martin Luther? It sounds pretty doctrinal to me.

 

[LilyM]

Have you read Exsurge Domine, the bull which condemned Martin Luther? It sounds pretty doctrinal to me.

Or Luther’s 95 Theses? They too sound awfully doctrinal.

 

[VARC]

And to supplement what LilyM said re: disciplines in the Catechism…

I knew we’d get to the old Catechisms - unfortuantely for your case, the mention of something in the Catechism does not make that thing infallible. We Catholics recognise that Catechisms, in and of themselves, are not infallible. Are there infallible teachings IN the Catechism? Yes. But to sort those out, you need to look at the Church councils and other documents. You can keep saying it all day, but Limbo was simply never a doctrine.

Edit - If you’d like to read more about this, please go here:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

Silly papists and your legalisic technicalities. The fact is that limbo was taught as catholic truth for several hundred years by the pope and all of bishops in communion with him. That fact alone would make it “infallible” by virtue of the Ordinary magesterium of the church. But I disgress. Infallible or not, it is a change in doctrine.

 

[Peter_J]

My main driving force is really for the Protestants on this site. If Roman Catholic doctrine has not changed, why should I pursue an ecumenical agenda?

I think it’s a good question in either direction.

As I understand it, you’re asking, Why is an ecumenical agenda a good thing to pursue today, if it wasn’t 400 years ago?

My answer (regardless of whether you talking about the Protestant p.o.v. or the Catholic p.o.v.) is that an ecumenical agenda was good thing to pursue 400 years ago, just as it is today.

 

[RobHom]

Have you read Exsurge Domine, the bull which condemned Martin Luther? It sounds pretty doctrinal to me.

Actually…given all the evidence that exists on both sides and secular sources included…the nature of the places and times that it occurred…it would appear that it was both doctrinal and political…

 

[Peter_J]

Or Luther’s 95 Theses? They too sound awfully doctrinal.

True.

 

[RobHom]

Silly papists and your legalisic technicalities. The fact is that limbo was taught as catholic truth for several hundred years by the pope and all of bishops in communion with him. That fact alone would make it “infallible” by virtue of the Ordinary magesterium of the church. But I disgress. Infallible or not, it is a change in doctrine.

Silly anti-papists and your legalistic technicalities. Your attempted insertion of your suppositions into reality beyond your control does not make it “infallible” in any event. You paint with a very broad brush. Have you any proof that “for several hundred years the Pope and all of the Bishops in communion with him” taught that? Please give sources.

Perhaps before answering you might wish to expand your knowledge base by reading the information at this link:

newadvent.org/summa/5069.htm

 

[Timothysis]

Silly papists and your legalisic technicalities. The fact is that limbo was taught as catholic truth for several hundred years by the pope and all of bishops in communion with him. That fact alone would make it “infallible” by virtue of the Ordinary magesterium of the church. But I disgress. Infallible or not, it is a change in doctrine.

We still speak today of the sun “rising” and “setting.” Does that mean that the Copernican theory of a sun-centered solar system is incorrect, since we’ve been saying that the sun “rises” and “sets” for centuries?

 

[mattkubes]

Silly papists and your legalisic technicalities. The fact is that limbo was taught as catholic truth for several hundred years by the pope and all of bishops in communion with him. That fact alone would make it “infallible” by virtue of the Ordinary magesterium of the church. But I disgress. Infallible or not, it is a change in doctrine.

I think you had better read LilyM’s post again - Bishops can teach lost of things, not just doctrines. Chances are that, as something in the Catechism, it was widely taught. But never was it enforced as doctrine.