Q. If the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and many doctrines are supposedly based upon the teaching of the apostles and scripture, how can it change its doctrines, like at Vatican II?
A. Actually the Catholic Church has never changed its doctrines. She has held fast. That is why so many reject her for not approving modern views of contraception, homosexuality, etc. What she does change however are her disciplines. Disciplines are changeable but doctrine is not changeable because they are truths revealed by God–such as the incarnation, Trinity, Virgin Birth, etc. But disciplines are practices the Church decides to use to help lead the faithful to a deeper Faith and relationship with Our Lord.
For instance, for years Catholics were to abstain from the flesh of land animals on Friday. They could eat fish instead. This was a small sacrifice for the sake of discipline; to suffer a little bit on Friday in memory and union with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross on Good Friday. It inserted the practice of our Faith into an additional day of the week besides Sundays only. But by the time of Vatican II, it was decided by the Magesterium of the Church to remove this particular discipline as mandatory and change it. The new discipline for Friday’s is that each of the faithful may choose their own sacrifice to join themselves to the suffering of Christ. They may choose whatever is meaningful for them but all are encouraged to do something. However, due to poor catechesis, many ordinary Catholics think the Friday discipline was dropped altogether.
CCC1438 The seasons and days of penance in the course of the liturgical year (Lent, and each Friday in memory of the death of the Lord) are intense moments of the Church’s penitential practice. These times are particularly appropriate for spiritual exercises, penitential liturgies, pilgrimages as signs of penance, voluntary self-denial such as fasting and almsgiving, and fraternal sharing (charitable and missionary works).
Another discipline that the Church has changed is married priests. We know that Peter was married, since scripture mentions his mother-in-law. We do not know if his wife was still living or if any of the other disciples were married. But there have been and still are married men who are priests of the Roman Catholic Church. Most are not, however. The practice of maintaining a predominately celibate priesthood is a discipline, not an unchangeable doctrine. That is why it is even possible at all, to have married priests in the Catholic Church. Theoretically this could change again. To learn more about the history of celibacy see here.
So, let me restate the fact that the Catholic Church does not change her Doctrine. It is easy to see, however, that many, even Catholics, could be confused and think, erroneously that the Church “changed her doctrines”, dropped doctrines, or made up new doctrines.
Filed under: The Church
Actually the Catholic Church has never changed its doctrines..didn’t the Church teach for many years that usuray (lending money at an interest) a sin and today the Vatican bank traffics strongly on the stock exchange ?
The CHANGES of Vatican II were an utter mistake.
Dear Geo and Leon,
You both cite changes but none of them are DOCTRINAL CHANGES. They were changes in PRACTICE. As for Vatican II many in the US have used it as an excuse to change anything and everything they wanted to change. However, I encourage you to read the Documents of Vatican II and see for yourself that “changes” you deplore are NOT EVEN IN THE DOCUMENTS. Mass in the vernacular is not commanded nor is orientum ad populum (my Latin is probably wrong) but having the priest face the people was NOT directed by Vatican II. Our Pope has his work cut out for him to bring the American Church back to the truths of Vatican II.
As for usury the OT forbade it. But we live in a different economy than the OT societies. Do you have a credit card? Have you bought a car with a loan or a house?
The primary problem with usury or interest was the lack of charity involved in loaning money to the poor and then charging interest. This is not charity but greed. However around the time of the 1600’s economies began to change and the loaning of money to someone for investment purposes was different than for buying bread to keep from starving. The one who loaned money took a risk of losing it all or never getting it all back and therefore, in justice, deserved some sort of extra to pay him back for the risk, when he could have used his money to buy land or some other safer investment. Click on the link for the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on usury and the history of it. If you don’t want to read it all I at least encourage you to scroll down to about the 7th and 8th paragraphs.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm
Wikipedia also has a good general history of usury. Just google it.
As you know, I am “very Catholic,” but I’ve wondered about the doctrine, or teaching, of limbo for unbaptized babies that have died.
I realize it was never declared a dogma by the Magesterium, but it was a teaching nevertheless. If I recall correctly, it was even taught in the old My Catholic Faith catechism. I’ve never seen a copy of the Baltimore Catechism — maybe it’s in there, too.
I think it’s correct to explain that it was “a” theological solution to a theological question, but that it wasn’t an infallible teaching — just a common one.
The lesson to learn, then, is that not all teachings are the same. Only some are dogma, and dogma is what’s here to stay.
Darren,
You raise a timely issue since Limbo has recently been in the news. In Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma I could not find Limbo in the index.
I do not know how Limbo would be classified but according to Ott there are different Theological Grades of Certainty regarding the teachings of the Catholic Faith.
First: Dogma
Second: Catholic Doctrine or Catholic Truths
Third:Teaching proximate to the Faith
Fourth: A teaching pertaining to the faith
Fifth: Common teaching
Sixth: Theological Opinions
And then within each of these grades there is also a heirarchy of levels of certainty.
For instance within the 6th grade: Theological Opinion there are 5 further divisions.
First is: Well Founded Opinion and the
Fifth is: Tolerated opinion.
This is tradition concerning eating fish that I do not want to condem. However, items first mentioned above
Homosexual activity is notpermisable. As long as tradition can have a paralell to the Bible it is as the Bible. But do not be confused, some tradion is not Bibaly corect.
The Catholic Church can change any tradition they have created. The first paragraph up above uses the word “supposedly” says something. The doctrine of Vatican II is something of Catholic and is not in the Bible..
Dear Dennis,
When the Catholic Church talks about Tradition it is referring to the Teachings of the Apostles. These are not the “teachings of Men” This is not changeable either. As the years passed we understood this teaching more deeply. For instance the Trinity is not explained anywhere in the Bible but it was taught in Oral TRADITION. It is only obliquely referred to in Scripture.
The reason no doctrine of the Catholic faith contradicts anything in scripture is because the Bible actually came out to the Teaching of the Apostles. Some of it got written down but a lot of it was taught and passed down orally. As St. Paul said
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren,stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
Unlike most of our Protestant brothers and sisters, who take the Bible and determine the doctrines of their faith by study of the scriptures the Catholic Faith came long before the Bible was canonized. Therefore, we do NOT sit down with the Bible and derive our doctrines OUT of Scripture Alone/ Sola Scriptura. Luther invented that doctrine 1500 years after the time of Christ. And the Catholic Church rejects Luther’s doctrine. We take all of our doctrines directly from the Teaching of the Apostles of Jesus Christ BOTH ORAL and WRITTEN.
well by what authority did the Catholic Church
change God’s law of the original saturday sabbath
to the now man maid sabbath sunday? As I study the word of
God I found that it is very important to keep this commandment.
The change of keeping the Lord’s Day on Sunday instead of Saturday was by the authority Jesus gave to Peter and the Church He founded. By giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter and the Church and the power to bind and loose (a rabbinic formula meaning “authority to Rule) the day of worship was changed to Sunday in celebration of the resurrection of Jesus.
Interestingly, Jesus did nothing on Saturday or the Jewish Sabbath. But Friday was consecrated by His death and Sunday by His resurrection. Also, most, if not all, of His appearances to His apostles and others occured on SUNDAY.
So, of course those who do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church to rule would reject this change based on scripture alone. And others who also reject the Catholic Church and yet accept the sabbath change to Sunday accept this Catholic TRADITION and several others. Some of the other Catholic TRADITIONS Protestants accept are the canon of the New Testament, the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Because as I have said elsewhere, the New Testament and even the whole Bible is NOT a Systematic Theology text. Someone must interpret it. The question is: Who has authority to interpret it infallibly?
jesus also told peter:
Mark 8:33
But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
as true christains we can’t
take the scripture out of context!
study for your self.
its either tradition or scriptures.
I my self choose scriptures cause tradition
doesn’t meen a thing.
back to the topic:
jesus folowed the ten commandments also. so why is it again that the catholic church ecourages sunday worship
when jews today still worship on the original sbbath sturday. jesus didn’t change anything just came to fulfill the promises from god.
What about Mary Magdelene? For years, the church taught that she was the same as the “sinful woman”, but they have recently backpedaled on that. I believe Gregory said that in the 600s.
There are still people of that opinion. People are free to have different opinions about that and many other things. Who the sinful woman is has nothing to do with doctrine so it is not germaine to the discussion here. When I am talking about Doctrine I am talking to statements in the Creeds and other de Fide kinds of beliefs like:
These are the doctrines that don’t change.
“Jesus is present body and soul under the appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharist”
Mary is sinless and a perpetual virgin.
Doctrine of the Trinity
Pope is infallible.
The seven sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Communion, Marriage, Holy Orders, Confession, Annointing of the sick.
These are the doctrines that don’t change.
**So you believe that Mary was sinless? But isnt Jesus the only ‘human’ who didnt sin? The Scriptures say that we are ALL sinners. And Mary stopped being a virgin as she conceived other sons (such as James) with Joseph, her husband.
Dear Eli:
Q. So you believe that Mary was sinless?
A. Yes. I have posted on this and had several conversations about this. So I would like to refer you to the following posts.
Martin Luther believed in Mary’s Immaculate Conception
Immaculate Conception I
Immaculate Conception 2
Mary Was NOT Sinless
Q. But isnt Jesus the only ‘human’ who didnt sin?
A. Jesus was certainly sinless but millions of humans, at this moment are innocent of actual sin. They have been born with a fallen nature and will surely sin eventually. Adam, Eve, and Mary were not originally in possession of a sin nature.
All Have Sinned
All Have Sinned…Except Mary?
Can Humans Be Sinless?
Q. And Mary stopped being a virgin as she conceived other sons (such as James) with Joseph, her husband.
A. This is a legitimate interpretation of scripture but it is not the only legitimate interpretation.
Martin Luther and the Reformers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Brothers and Sisters of Jesus?
The Cathlic Bible says there is but one
mediator between God and man. But the church
designates Mary as a mediatress. Is this not
adding to the Word of God?
Please see my reply HERE
Only a doctrine that is dogma is infallible. while every
Dogma is a doctrine,not every doctrine is a dogma.Out of the 100s if not thousands of doctrines or teachings of the past 2000 years relatively few are dogmas. Popes like Honorius have been codemned for heresy & Vatican II teaches a constant tradition that reception of a teaching by the faithful is involved in the infallibilty of the church. Example people accept Jesus Christ is Redeemer(a dogma),they have not accepted the teaching that every act of birth control is evil—a teaching that is fallible.
Kim,
Every act of “birth control” would include NFP which is not evil. However, contraception has everywhere and always been condemned and it is an infallible magesterial teaching.
Paul VI, in Humanae Vitae once again condemned all contraception as the Pope, teacher of the whole Church. This was on morals and therefore is infallible and should be accepted with docility by all the faithful.
The heretics have put forth contrary teaching to justify contraception b/c they are unwilling to conform to Christ against this corrupt culture.
Honorius NEVER taught heresy. He was NOT condemned for teaching heresy. He was condemned b/c he did not use his office to vigorously teach against heresy and thereby allowed the heresy to florish.
Many heretics had recently been reunited to the Church without enough doctrinal clarity. So, in order to maintain the newly won unity he failed to teach with doctrinal clarity that Christ had two wills, one human and one divine, lest unity be dissolved. This allowed false teaching to continue. It was this fault that was later condemned.
However, PAPAL infallibility resides only in what is TAUGHT to the WHOLE CHURCH on FAITH and MORALS. So Honorius is NOT an example of Papal Fallibility. Honorius’ failure could be likened to St. Peter, when he failed to eat with the gentiles in deference to the judeizers and was rebuked by St. Paul. Peter did not teach error to the whole church on faith and morals and neither did Honorius.
You can read all the technicalities HERE
Pam,
I’m a Protestant, so please don’t berate me or anything if I misunderstand or misrepresent anything in my questions here. They are somewhat related to changes in Rome’s claims, and the questions themselves are rather closely related. Unfortunately, this might be somewhat long, so please bear with me.
1. Why exactly is the Vatican allowed to change its position on Islam? From this link (http://bereanbeacon.org/articles/The_Papacy_and_Islam.pdf), it seems that the Vatican has changed its position on Islam from being opposed to it to declaring that “Included in the plan of salvation are Muslims…” Which leads to 2…
2. This isn’t intended to be a stumper, but…I mean, Muslims claim that Allah is the same God as the God of the Bible, but from my reading of the Bible and of verses in the Quran, it just seems pretty clear to me that Allah and YHWH are NOT the same God. Allah isn’t triune, and he loves those who love him, while YHWH loves unbelievers as well.
Furthermore, the unforgivable sin in Islam is to confess the deity of Jesus. So basically, the question is: with these glaring differences, how can Muslims be included in the plan of salvation? Which leads to 3…
3. According to the Vatican, are Protestants excluded from the plan of salvation?
Let me clarify…for a while, I was extremely opposed to Catholicism (my animosity has died down somewhat, though). For one, I came across those teachings and quotes about Mary, and my instant reaction was “WHAT?!?!?!” I was outraged by such blasphemy. I’m sure there have been and are many other Protestants like me in that regard. So, after being “introduced” to Roman Catholicism, many Protestants probably stop there and reject Catholicism outright.
Now, if Rome is the Church that Jesus founded, I don’t think that anyone who is highly opposed to that Church would enter heaven. But…according to the Vatican, are the Protestants who truly love God with all their heart and soul and mind and strength, but who are outraged at what the Vatican teaches, going to hell, while the Muslims who vehemently deny the Trinity and the deity of Jesus going to heaven?
FM,
The Vatican has not changed its position on Islam. I did not read all six pages on the link but the author made assertions and interpretations of the Pope’s words that were not backed up by the quotations.
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on planet Earth. Christ’s representative in time and space. He seeks the salvation of all souls. And he is affirming those things that are good and true in Islam. T(hey are not true of the radical forms of Islam.) This does not mean that the Pope believes Islam is another path, among many, to salvation. That is the heresy of indifferentism. By finding common ground the Pope is hoping to overcome obstacles in the minds of Muslims so that they might be attracted to Christianity and convert.
By saying that Muslims are included in the plan of salvation he merely means that God desires that all men be saved and He will save them but if so then it is NOT through Islam that they are saved but throught Jesus Christ and HIS Church. Anyone who makes it to Heaven makes it by what God finds in their heart and the love for Him that He finds there, in spite of their ignorance of Christianity per se. It is all through the loving MERCY of Christ.
This is a very big difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. And it is such a blessing because the God of the Catholic Faith is truly more merciful and understanding than the God of Protestantism. Our Lord judges a soul based on what they knew and how they responded to that knowledge (ROM. 1). He does not condemn a soul to Hell b/c they knew nothing of Christianity or through invincible ignorance, or due to the evil acts of bad “Christans”. For instance, in Nazi Germany, Jews were both saved by Christians and betrayed by Christians.
2) Muslims believe in ONE GOD. This is True. Through Ishmael they carried this religious truth down through the generations of Arabs. The Catholic Faith affirms what is true in other religions, but also attempts to correct what is wrong and draw all men to Christ. True Allah may not be triune but neither was it thought by the Jews that God was a trinity. We are not saved by correct knowledge but by loving hearts that worship Our Lord as best as we know. Our Father welcomes the love of His children even when they don’t know Him completely.
Muslims are not included in the plan of salvation in the same way as Jesus or the Catholic Church is a part of the plan of salvation. It is just that Muslims too can be saved. But, it is much more difficult for them b/c they lack so much Truth and the grace of the Sacraments. But God can take all of this into account for each and every individual. “To whom much is given MUCH is required.” That is you and me.
3) Protestants are included in the plan of salvation just as the Muslims but they have the great helps of much more Truth in their journey to God than Muslims. The documents of Vatican II refer to the Jews as our elder brothers in the Faith and to Protestants as our separated brethren in the Faith.
As CS Lewis illustrated: The Trinity is like a fire in a cold room. Those who are closest to it are the most warmed and receive the most benefit. Those a bit more removed less benefit but still much warmth and light. Those farther away less and less as the location drifts further away from the fire, but still some light and some warmth.
All religions have some “light” of Truth. We affirm that and based on our common beliefs we try to build on this to draw all men to Christ.
Just like missionaries have done since the advent of Christianity.
God will be the judge regarding someone who is highly opposed to the Catholic Church. God knows if this animosity is from true knowledge or if it is based completely on misinformation and lies. This is usually the case, especially for Protestants. If what the many anti-Catholics teach about the Catholic Church were true, Catholics would hate The Church too. But it is mostly lies, distortions, misunderstandings, and jumping to uncharitable conclusions. So, God will judge even anti Catholic Protestants with mercy, if they are truly invincibly ignorant. We will all be judged on what we knew and how we responded to that knowledge. Did we run away from truth out of self-will or cowardice? Have you read my conversion story?
Thanks for the kind, reply, Pam. I’ve got a few comments, though, so please bear with me.
1. “Anyone who makes it to Heaven makes it by what God finds in their heart and the love for Him that He finds there, in spite of their ignorance of Christianity …”
Are the Muslims going to be let into heaven despite their vehement denial of Jesus’ divinity? And what about Acts 4:12? I think that anyone who has passed the age of accountability MUST be saved through faith in Jesus. The Muslims have certainly never asked Jesus to forgive their sins.
And simply put…please read the Quran’s description of Allah (especially the part about Allah and nonbelievers), and then compare it with the Bible’s description of YHWH. From what we can see of the heart of Allah and YHWH, it just seems so clear to me that the god the Muslims worship is NOT the same God the Christians worship.
2. “…neither was it thought by the Jews that God was a trinity.”
From what I’ve read, I disagree. I think the Jews did indeed know that YHWH is triune. Here’s a link: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html
3. I’m not too clear about this, but…http://www.ntrmin.org/images/questions/Cath-Prot-include.htm
FM:
Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
BFHU: And we agree with this verse but it doesn’t say in there any of what you said. “I think that anyone who has passed the age of accountability MUST be saved through faith in Jesus. The Muslims have certainly never asked Jesus to forgive their sins.”
So, you see this is your interpretation of this verse. All who will be saved ARE SAVED by JESUS and no one or anything else. It was His death that opened salvation and the Father’s judgment of who has been saved by Jesus’ death and resurrection. So, you see it is still under the name of Jesus. But Catholics deny the narrow Protestant interpretation “that only those who have asked Jesus to forgive their sins can be saved.”
Do you then say that all the people who lived in the western hemisphere are doomed to Hell b/c they did not ask Jesus to forgive their sins until the Spaniards and Jesuits and Pilgrims came to these two continents in the 1500’s AD? As for the Muslims or any other group We let God judge. It is none of our business.
The God of the Quran may be a demon but individual Muslims in their heart of hearts are destined to seek their God as are all human beings. So regardless of what the Quran says or doesn’t say God will judge the soul of each and we can count on His mercy and fairness.
I think I said this before, but thank you, Pam, for kindly responding! In the area of “religious” websites and discussion boards, there have unfortunately been too many attacks on the arguer and not the argument itself. So thank you for not pulling off ad hominems and cheap rhetorical tricks. I shall endeavor to do the same as well.
You said: “Do you then say that all the people who lived in the western hemisphere are doomed to Hell b/c they did not ask Jesus to forgive their sins until the Spaniards and Jesuits and Pilgrims came to these two continents in the 1500’s AD?”
I understand this might not intellectually be the best answer, but missionaries travelling to far away lands have reported amazing accounts of people having already heard things that prepared them for the missionaries’ arrival. Here’s a link:
http://net-burst.net/hot/miracle.htm
So, I think my point remains valid.
Yes, I have heard these reports as well but the fact remains that those who lived and died for millenia before the arrival of the missionaries (on the western continent) NEVER asked Jesus to forgive them for their sins. They never even heard of Jesus.
In the Protestant view of salvation: They are all going to Hell.
In the Catholic view of salvation: They will be judged by our merciful God based on the knowledge they had and how they responded to that knowledge and if they did well they may enter eternal life.
Hello Pam,
I haven’t posted here in quite a while…been busy with school. Just a question: does the Vatican say that ALL Muslims are included in the plan of salvation?
See, I was thinking…verses like John 8:19 (”If you knew Me, you would know My Father also”) and John 8:42 (”…if God were your Father, you would love Me…”) and John 8:47 (”He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”) seem to be saying that if anyone truly has a relationship with God the Father, then he or she would recognize God the Son.
Now, I don’t think that if one never hears the name of Jesus, then he or she will go to hell. I do think, though, that when and if someone hears or reads about Jesus, then he or she will realize who He is.
In light of this…if these Muslims are going to heaven, then they’re probably saved, though they don’t know it. It would be odd if they were left spiritually unregenerate in this life. But if they are born again, then that means they have established a relationship with the Father. But if that’s the case, then why are they still Muslims? If they truly have a relationship with the Father, then according to those verses in John, they should have realized upon reading the Bible (and MANY Muslims have read the Bible) that Jesus is indeed divine. So…how can they remain in Islam?
I am not sure what you mean by “included in the plan of salvation.” ALL people who have ever lived or will ever live have access to salvation through the merits of Jesus Christ.
so, in that sense they are included in the plan of salvation. Anyone who makes it to Heaven makes it by the death and resurrection of Jesus. Islam DOES NOT save them.
Regarding the salvation of Muslims I don’t know the answers to your questions. They must seek salvation of their own souls and you must save your soul using all the knowledge you can. Leave the intricacies to Our Lord. No general answer to your questions would suffice anyway b/c each individual case is different.
We need to be able to rejoice with the rest of Heaven when we finally realize who is in Heaven. Even if it is Hitler, Manson, or Osama bin Laden. I am not saying they will be there, but we must realize that God loves their souls just as much as He loves ours. We must be merciful as He is merciful and rejoice that even someone very evil in this life can still be saved by the mercy of Christ. I have been able to rejoice in this but it was difficult it was at first. What helped is to realize that these people will need to spend a lot more time in Purgatory—a doctrine you lack in Protestantism. This lack makes it more difficult to accept how MERCIFUL Our LORD really is. Purgatory is on the way to Heaven. That is where Justice and Mercy kiss…..
Hi everyone,
I had a discussion yesterday with a Protestant friend of mine and I was maintaining my belief that the Catholic Church has not changed its doctrine. But he mentioned that ST Irenaeus was clearly for the doctrine of election and so was the Catholic Church and this doctrine changed years after to what we believe today that Jesus died for everyone.
Dear Laurel,
The fact that a Saint, even one as great as St. Irenaeus, taught something does not mean their teaching was infallible or that it is what the Church taught. Besides this,all kinds of heresies were taught for centuries by Catholic Heretics. But these were opposed by the Pope and the Magesterium. Ask your friend for the citation or where it can be found that the Church taught limited atonement, predestination and/or the doctrine of election. I do not believe she will be able to prove it.
The Sacred Scripture:
The Catholic Church has always taught that not everyone will BE saved but as far as I know it has never taught that Christ died only for the elect. So, I would love to have her try to prove her contention.