A
adf417
Guest
What changed in the Catholic Church constitute doctrinal changes to you (non-Catholics)? Of these changes are there any with salvific value?
- Status
C
Carlan
Guest
Good question Adf, now let us hear from all our Non Catholic brothers visiting the forums, we love you and you are most welcome to the forums. Peace, Carlan
In a general sense, I believe it is a (doctrinal) change to move from permitting the belief in something, to requiring it. For example, the IC and the Assumption.
That which is salvific has been known since the early Church, ISTM.
Jon
A
adf417
Guest
Well Jon I was assuming these two examples were adders as opposed to changes but I will note these as is.
Are there any others from anyone elae?
Right!
I guess the salvific portion of the OP should have been clarified from the negative…Are there any changes to Catholic doctrine that you believe has a negative impact on individual salvation?
Oddly enough, not on individual salvation. IOW, I don’t think Catholics are condemned because they believe thus and such that we don’t believe. You have word and sacrament, through which the Spirit works grace.Well Jon I was assuming these two examples were adders as opposed to changes but I will note these as is.
Are there any others from anyone elae?
Right!
I guess the salvific portion of the OP should have been clarified from the negative…Are there any changes to Catholic doctrine that you believe has a negative impact on individual salvation?
I think the bigger concern is that some of the changes have been church-dividing, which is sad in and of itself, but not necessarily impacting individual salvation.
Obviously, I am aware that Catholics will disagree with the assessment that changes (“development of doctrine”) have done this.
Jon
C
concretecamper
Guest
I do not think the Church would require belief (dogma) in something unless it was beneficial to one’s salvation.
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
C
cath4alltime
Guest
I don’t understand the question
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Me too. Maybe adf is asking Protestants what they perceive as changes the Catholic Church has made which she did not have before.I don’t understand the question
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
From my perspective, the change in the permissibility of charging interest constitutes a dramatic change in Catholic moral doctrine.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Not too sure if this is a Catholic thing or if the Church had ever a stand on this. Maybe you can elaborate and tell us how and what is this.
I’m sure that is the view of the pope and Magisterium in establishing them.
Jon
F
ffg
Guest
Interesting thread.
Documenting what was already a teaching or an event in history is not a ‘creating’ event.
Why is it a good that documenting was done and put in what we call the Bible that has been widely accepted and kept as a key document through time, but documenting is bad or wrong, when it’s made / compiled at a different time?
People should consider that more documents were going to be made when doing so was not as time consuming as technology advanced.
Documenting what was already a teaching or an event in history is not a ‘creating’ event.
Why is it a good that documenting was done and put in what we call the Bible that has been widely accepted and kept as a key document through time, but documenting is bad or wrong, when it’s made / compiled at a different time?
People should consider that more documents were going to be made when doing so was not as time consuming as technology advanced.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Usury was at one time condemned. It was one of the common avenues of attack against Jews (they couldn’t own land or be members of the nobility, thus in medieval society they were forced to be bankers).
This condemnation was broken by the Calvinists who embraced it, and over time the strong condemnation of other Christians has gradually withered away. I’m not sure if you’ll find anything by the church saying it is a good thing, but they tend to be silent on the subject (this includes most churches, not just the Catholic Church).
A
Asceneguege
Guest
The debate on Nessie continues year after year and during all accounts will-power last to do so proper for kuchniaiogrod.pl multifarious years to come. Every year new inspektorbudowy.com concentration of the media but no one tusz hp have provided genuine evidence that the monster does in point of fact exist. Many notariusz-rodzik.pl make one think that the Loch is entirely not outstanding sufficiency to support notariusz kolobrzeg material evidence has even been set they comprise a valid point. Dialect mayhap the biggest winners even if of the Loch Ness white are neighbourhood businesses make to the Loch as Nessie has evolve into chestnut of Scotlands best tourist attractions. With a view mutation spotting there is no wiser location than Drumnadrochit as it not only has hotels condign a short prowl away from the Lochs shoreline but also profuse of the upper crust sighing take befall from the town.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Reported.
npatrol:
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
The practice was condemned (the penalty being excommunication) as late as the Council of Vienna (1311) but then the position was reversed by the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517). The Catholic Church had long condemned the practice on philosophical and biblical grounds. Aquinas has extensive discussions about it in the Summa if you’re interested in a good Catholic summary of the position.
You can also follow the history of the Church’s condemnation in David Jones, Reforming the Morality of Usury, although the focus of the book is mainly about arguments among early Protestant reformers.
S
SteveVH
Guest
The issue of usury is one of canon law, not doctrine.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
And the Church has never condemned charging interest. Only usury…
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
The problem is that up until the Renaissance, usury was defined by the Church as charging interest on a loan–regardless of the rate of interest.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Please cite your source.
- Status