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 click —>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.
The most critical apostolic doctrines are plainly written in the New Testament. These teachings are different than Catholic teachings. The Roman Catholic church had its beginning well after Nicea. The early church was not Roman Catholic in doctrine or practice.
Michael,
What Bible “teachings are different than Catholic teachings?”
Protestants always assert this but I have found over and over again that it is merely the Protestant INTERPRETATION that differs with Catholic teaching. And I have no doubt that the same will be true with what ever example you give.
Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church on Peter and the apostles. The fact that it was called the Catholic Church is proven by a letter written around the year A.D. 107, by a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East. He was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards, and eventually martyred there in the arena.
In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote,
Thus, we have proof that the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church had already been established.
You have been taught many Protestant traditions that are neither true nor historical.
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?
Just one problem with Jesus dying on Friday and rising on Sunday — That is not 3 days in the tomb.
Not the way we count days 2000 years later in the West. But for the ancients it did count as three days.
How Long was Jesus Dead?
It is even a Protestant site.
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.
How can you say the church has not changed doctrine? You are 100% correct the church has never changed any doctrines and can’t. God would cease to be God before any doctrines could change in the Catholic Church. The real question; just who is in the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church can boast indefectibility because it is none other than Christ. The Church is the visible mystical body of Christ in the world. One who changes doctrine or believes foreign doctrine in the Church knowingly is automatically outside the Church. Like a section of grape vine that has been severed from the vine, the shape is there and seems good and healthy and indeed there is life in it but it is not a part of the vineyard any longer. This severed vine can be grafted back after a change of heart as long as there is life left in it. Paul talked about that in the book of Romans.
When you look to Rome and the Vatican do you assume all or any are in the Church? How would you know? What a man says and what he believes today are not connected. For example, I asked the parish priest how was it that the word all replaced the word many in the consecration of the Eucharist. His reply was “If it makes you happy, they are changing back to the word many because it is a little closer to the Latin translation than the word all is.” This he said will occur in two years. I wonder what the writers of the Trent catechism would tell him if they were here today; because they explained the reason they have used many and not all these past two thousand years: “Therefore were the words FOR ALL not used, because here alone it speaks of the fruit of Christ’s passion.”
So to conclude, you are right; Catholic doctrine has not changed, but any Mass that has changed the form of consecration to mean something other than what was intended in doctrine, has in fact not changed church doctrine but their personal doctrine. Impenetrable ignorance is notwithstanding. But what priest has not read the catechism of Trent? What priest can say pro multis (for many) is close in meaning to pro omnibus (for all)? I would suggest one who believes in a new doctrine of universal salvation.
Joseph, I agree with most of what you have said here. The Catholic Church is indefectible b/c it is the body of Christ. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. And He promised that the Gates of Hell would not overcome it. Therefore I trust the Church founded by Jesus Himself. I reject the “churches” founded by men even though i am sure their motives were good. It can be established that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are continuous with the doctrines of the Christian Church of the first 100-300 years of its infant history. Protestant doctrine is nowhere to be found for 1500 years. Therefore, I converted to the Catholic Church.
Unfortunately, as I am sure you know Satan HATES the Catholic Church. At times in her history he has had some tactical victories. The chaos following the second Vatican Council created much that has weakened the faith of many Catholics. The “pro multis” vs “pro omnibus” changes are a small example. Many much worse practices have occurred that directly abuse the Holy Eucharist. But our Pope is rectifying these abuses slowly but surely. In addition, those who hijacked Vatican II are aging and retiring and becoming less able to influence the Church. The young faithful and priests are much more faithful to the orthodox Catholic Church.
I am sure there are a lot of rebellious priests in the Church today that would NEVER even consider reading the Council of Trent. But, things they are a-changing…..
God Bless Pam Forrester bfhu.wordpress.com
Dear Pam,
Your optimism and faith is admirable. I was 16 in 1969 when our parish priest would read letter after letter from Rome making change upon change, month after month. One of the movers and shakers in Vatican II was you-know-who and you are waiting for him to fix things. All the changes were made to the Mass in about one year. So tell me; why does it take two years to change just one word in the liturgy?
I am convinced this is the great apostasy predicted by Paul. Of course, I could be wrong. But reading as much as one can read on the subject, the evidence is overwhelming. I am compelled to comment on your words about “pro multis” being “a small example”. There are days of reading available concerning this controversy. After reading all one can find on both sides of the issue, a decision must be made. Does the word ALL invalidate what is for Catholics their very life? The form of a sacrament must signify what it affects. The sacrament of the Eucharist signifies and affects the mystical body of Christ according to Pope Leo XIII. All men are not a part of Christ’s body, hence universal salvation is a false doctrine signified by the word ALL. Ipso facto, when I came upon the question on this site (How Can the Catholic Church Change its Doctrines?), I gave an example.
Forty years have now expired since the implementation of the Novus Ordo mass. The Jews spent forty years in the desert. We are starting forty days of lent today. Let us pray for a resolution to this controversy so my family and I can return to Mass.
Dear Joseph, I never heard that letters were read in 1969. Were they from the bishop or the Vatican? I have only been Catholic for 10 years and I have a lot of sympathy for Catholics that had to go through the clown years following Vatican II. I have read the documents and they are fine. But change agents seized the opportunity to cram change down every Catholic throat. And now they are the ones complaining that the changes to the English lectionary are being made too fast. As Paul VI said, the “Smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”
There are many loyal and faithful Catholics in every parish church, you just have to keep your eyes and ears open to find them. You might enjoy website of Fr. Z. He has some fun posts but most about the advance of our Holy Faith and the defeat of the rebels in the Church. He is NOT SSPX, just a loyal orthodox Catholic.
God Bless Pam Forrester bfhu.wordpress.com
Dear Pam
The letters to my parish priest concerning the changes most likely came from the bishop. Until you asked, I never thought about it. I remember our priest saying these changes are from the pope and we must make these changes by such-and-such date. There is no doubt the content of the letters were instructions originating from Rome, most likely in Latin, translated by the bishop.
There is a Chinese saying “the faintest ink is better than the best memory”. I wonder if those letters are in a file somewhere. You gave me things to think about when you said you were a Catholic for ten years. I accepted the changes in 1970 until some three years ago.
But that’s not the thought you gave me. If we have the same faith, the complete Catholic faith, is what I wonder. By that I mean, do we know the same relationship with God the priest and the other people? I don’t doubt your trust and faith in Jesus. I asked a bishop once about the difference between having faith and what the faith is. He said the Catholic faith is what you choose to turn your spiritual eyes towards.
Pam, please allow me to briefly pontificate on what my aged spiritual eyes see as the nature of the Catholic Church. The church is the vehicle in which the priest offers God the only acceptable cures for our sins; His only begotten son, Jesus. This Christ offered himself as payment for sin. The Catholic Priest offers Jesus to the Almighty Father in the Mass, as a sacrifice for the sins of the people. If you are fortunate enough to be present at the Mass and your heart is right you receive this grace.
Those attending the Mass add nothing to the sacrifice, because alone it’s perfect and the sacrament is only confected by the priest. For an example, here is where the Protestants’ spiritual eyes look at a different faith. In there worship of the Almighty, they offer Him their adoration, songs and love and the like, which are good things but not an acceptable propitiation for sin. This is not the method that God chose for us to receive his Son’s fruit of salvation, his life giving body for the forgiveness of our sins and eternal life. God will only accept His Christ as an offering for the remission of sins. The Novus Ordo mass removed the verse “mystery of faith” from the form of consecration. Of course, a perfect act of contrition can forgive sin, but attending Mass is the more perfect method of removing venial sin.
I don’t mean to lecture you, but when Rome turned the altar around and the priest faces the people and the people respond as if they were altar boys, that’s not tradition of the Catholic faith. The Protestant faith hates the concept of priest and altar and sacrifice; that’s why they have a table in place of an altar and a minister rather than a priest and a service and not a sacrifice. Whether you believe it or not Rome is changing the faith to become what I just described. The priest is becoming a president; the altar is becoming a table; the sacrifice a spiritual banquette or the Lord’s Supper or a memorial meal.
I stopped reading the prayers and Intercessions part of the Universalis because of the many references to this stuff.
For example, I took this from Universalis Lauds this year: “Let us join together with joy at our Sunday gathering, around the table of your word and your body”. That is not remotely Catholic. “Sunday gathering”? Oh my, is the word Mass offensive? “The table of your word and body.” Do you see what I mean? “The table of your body.” There are no tables in the Catholic Church that hold our Lord’s Body; There is the altar and the tabernacle. You see how they are changing doctrine here.
The average person that calls themselves Catholic could care less about Pro Multis or an altar opposed to a table. I believe the last poll I read 70% don’t believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The poison of Vatican II has done its work. You said you read the documents of Vatican II and have no problem with them. We have a different opinion apparently, because I find them completely offensive and not the Roman Catholic Faith and I am ashamed it took me 40 years to read them. Dear Pam, I am not a hateful person and I don’t want to hurt anyone. Please read this as my opinion and then let it go. God loves us Pam – on that we can agree.
REVELATION:
The Catholic Church, should be guided by continuing revelation. It should have prophet and the authority from God. (Peter is not the ROCK, the ROCK is revelation) The Pope should be able to communicate directly with God and be able to clarify doctrines as did the original Apostles. Too many of the beliefs of the Catholic Church are doctrines of men mingled with scripture. If the Church was governed by revelation there would not be so many contradicting doctrines.
The Catholic Church is not founded upon revelation:
Realizing the importance of knowing the true nature of God, men had struggled to find a way to define Him. Learned clerics argued with one another. When Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century, he called together a great convocation of learned men with the hope that they could reach a conclusion of understanding concerning the true nature of Deity. All they reached was a compromise of various points of view. The result was the Nicene Creed of a.d. 325. This and subsequent creeds have become the declaration of doctrine concerning the nature of Deity for most of Christianity ever since.
Mary The Virgin:
I give to Mary the utmost respect, but she should not be worshiped as if she were another God, as she is worshiped in the Catholic Church. This goes against every doctrine in the scriptures. (Worshiping idols, and having other god’s before God himself)
You cannot simply dismiss the fact that Mary had other children. She was a virgin at the time of conception of Jesus but did not remain a virgin. This cannot be dismissed simply with ” This is a legitimate interpretation of scripture but it is not the only legitimate interpretation. ” It is THE ONLY interpretation.
Nor was Mary sinless, Jesus was the only sinless person to ever live, allowing him to atone for our sins. He was the only pure and spotless lamb.
Jeff: REVELATION:
The Catholic Church, should be guided by continuing revelation. It should have prophet and the authority from God. (Peter is not the ROCK, the ROCK is revelation)
BFHU:Jeff where does Jesus say that the ROCK is revelation!!! for our readers here is what Jesus actually said, to Peter:
I do not see the word “revelation” in there at all.
Jeff: The Pope should be able to communicate directly with God and be able to clarify doctrines as did the original Apostles.
BFHU: Where does this assertion come from? Can you back this up with scripture?
Jeff: Too many of the beliefs of the Catholic Church are doctrines of men mingled with scripture.
BFHU: You are correct. They are the doctrines taught by the man, Jesus, to His men the apostles, and passed down to the present time in written and oral form just as the man St. Paul asserted in I Thess.
Jeff:If the Church was governed by revelation there would not be so many contradicting doctrines.
BFHU: Uhhhh…such as? We have no contradicting doctrines. Some of our doctrines CONTRADICT PROTESTANT DOCTRINES or PROTESTANT INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. But we do not have any contradicting doctrines. That is one of the sublime beauties of the Catholic Faith. It is soooooo much more intellectually satisfying, cohesive, deep and complete than the Protestantism I was involved in.
Jeff: The Catholic Church is not founded upon revelation:
BFHU: It certainly is. It is founded upon ALL that Jesus Revealed and taught to his apostles, along with the OT. It is founded on more revelation than Protestantism, which has only written revelation to rely upon.
Jeff: Mary The Virgin:I give to Mary the utmost respect, but she should not be worshiped as if she were another God, as she is worshiped in the Catholic Church.
BFHU: WORSHIP OF MARY IS CONDEMNED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WE DO NOT WORSHIP MARY.
Jeff: You cannot simply dismiss the fact that Mary had other children. She was a virgin at the time of conception of Jesus but did not remain a virgin.
BFHU: Historically Mary had no other children. That is why Jesus gave her into the care of St. John from the cross. Even Luther, Calvin and Zwingli believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Upon what reliable source document do you assert that Mary had other children?
Jeff: This cannot be dismissed simply with ” This is a legitimate interpretation of scripture but it is not the only legitimate interpretation. ” It is THE ONLY interpretation.
BFHU: Is your interpretation infallible then? The so called brothers and sisters of Jesus were merely kinsmen.
Jeff:Nor was Mary sinless, Jesus was the only sinless person to ever live, allowing him to atone for our sins. He was the only pure and spotless lamb.
BFHU: Where does it say this in Scripture? You are espousing a Protestant Tradition of Men. What about babies who die? They have a fallen nature but they are sinless.
Dear Jeff,
I doubt you will read this as you have not been active in this thread for quite some time. I will post my thoughts anyway. Jesus did not speak English. I’m not saying He did not understand English because as God He was and is omniscient. But in his day to day life He spoke Aramaic. In the time that Jesus walked the earth as God-incarnate it was normal to call one’s cousins “brothers” and “sisters.” Mary did not have sexual intercourse with Joseph. Ever. This may sound strange in today’s world but it did not sound strange in biblical times. The word “until”as translated from the Greek of the NT does not mean what it means today. You seem to fail to understand that the bible is almost 2,000 years old. Surely the use of language has changed since then. Also, the bible was not originally written in English but in Greek and Hebrew.
Why do you say your interpretation of Scripture is the only interpretation? Do you speak and understand Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic? Are you an expert in the history of biblical times? Do you know the geography of the lands that Jesus visited and lived in?
Are you aware that the Catholic Church put the bible together? You claim to follow bible teaching but I wonder whether you know that you are claiming to follow the teaching of a Catholic document! To say that your interpretation is the only correct one is arrogant. Why would your interpretation be correct and mine wrong? We could both believe fully that we are guided by the Holy Spirit. Why are you right and Catholics wrong?
If this thread is still active:
I’ve been reading all this with great interest. BFHU – I am impressed with your knowledge and your charity in your responses. Your knowledge of Catholic Apologetics is excellent. I’ve read a lot of anti-Catholic sentiments on many blogs and websites. It’s refreshing to see one that presents truth and explains why the misconceptions about Catholicism are just that – misconceptions.
It is true that most people do not understand the Catholic Church. If they did they would not hate her as they do. If what they believe were true I would hate the Catholic Church, too. As a revert I spent much too much time without the grace that would have been imparted to me via the Sacraments. I thank God that I was led back home and I will never let go of my faith and love for God again.
God bless you!! You are in my prayers, as are all who have participated in this discussion. May God grant us all peace and joy. Amen.
You can have married priests but they are not clerics correct? And I also think that the people have to be married before hand correct? Ex. A protestant married pastor converting and wanting to be a priest in the church.
Thanks
Sam, I think a cleric is synonymous with a priest.But a cleric can also refer to pastors of other religions who may not even have priests per se. But in the Catholic Church a cleric and a priest are the same thing.
There are some Eastern Rite Catholic Churches in union with the Pope who have married priests. But they must be married before they are ordained to the priesthood. After ordination they cannot marry even if their wife dies. And the married clergy cannot be chosen to be a bishop. In the Latin Rite Catholic Church we do not ordain married men to the priesthood except those who were clergy in the Anglican/Episcopalian or Lutheran churches, were married and later became Catholic. Their ordination must be approved by the pope.