• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Catholic Church has never Changed doctrine.

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Doctrine YES http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm If you want to debate it Victor - start a thread with the premise that the Catholic Church has never changed doctrine. Define doctrine and we'll go from there. PM me when you've posted it.

OK Pah, instead of giving me links this time, would you be so kind as to copy and paste the change that has occured and who approved it. We can go from there.

~Victor
 

Pah

Uber all member
Thanks for the thread and the PM -

It would probablly be more productive for you to define what you understand to be Catholic Doctrine. Let's get that down at the onset.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Fair enough. Pah, thanks for your willingness to cooperate in such a mutual exchange.

Here is what is considered doctrine:
  • When the Pope speaks as the universal teacher from the Chair of Peter in defining faith and morals does so with an infallible charism with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Infallibility, in a sense, is a negative gift. It doesn't mean he always says the right thing, at the right time; but that when he speaks with the authority that Christ gives to him, we have this Divine guarantee, because Christ promises that "I will build my Church." The key word is "defines." Defining something is not the same as stating, teaching, declaring, condemning, or what have you. To further clarify catholic answers says, in order for him to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church, the pope must express himself in such a way that the faithful can know with certitude that he holds a particular proposition to have a particular doctrinal note (de fide, certain, false, proximate to heresy, heretical, et cetera). The faithful are then required to regard it likewise. If the faithful cannot know from what the pope says that a particular proposition is to be regarded in a particular way, then the pope has not defined the matter for the universal Church and thus has not spoken infallibly. If I remember correctly I believe that the Pope has only used this gift 2 times in Church history. The others decision were made in Councils.
  • Infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope. Usually held as an ecumenical council.
Hope this clarifies. If it doesn't then ask questions so we can get this out of the way.

~Victor
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
I'm interested to see how this one pans out as I quite clearly believe that the RCC has changed doctrine, and the idea of Papal Infallibility is a good case in point. I'm not going to but in yet as I want to see what arguments you two come up with first, but I'll probably contribute more later. All I would ask is this: if the Roman Catholic Church has never changed doctrine how is it that Papal Infallibility was unheard of prior to Vatican 1 and that's its introduction caused such an uproar at the time? I can see absolutely no precedent for this most peculiarly RC doctrine in either Scripture or Holy Tradition.

James
 

Uncertaindrummer

Active Member
Well James, would you admit that if the Bishop of Rome had power over the whole Church and that he was the Pontiff, and had more than just an honorary power as you attest, that he must have some measure of infallibility thanks to Christ's many promises to His Church?
 

Pah

Uber all member
Victor,

I understand infalliablity to be ex catherdra which is not a spiritual attribute of Bishop or Cardinal at any time. The Pope has it and it's been used twice. Whatever.

Perhaps you can tell me the sources of evidence you think as being authorative for Catholic doctrine.
  • Papal Bulls
  • writings of Counsel procedings
  • Vatican I
  • Vatican II
  • Doctrine established in Early Church writings
  • Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and it's predecessors
  • AmericanCatholic.org, when it speaks of doctrine
  • New Advent when it speaks of doctrine
  • Other sources of writings carrying the Nihil Obstat, defined as "1. Roman Catholic Church An attestation by a church censor that a book contains nothing damaging to faith or morals.", and Imprimatur defined as "1. Official approval or license to print or publish, especially under conditions of censorship. 2.a. Official approval; sanction.
    2.b. A mark of official approval: a directive bearing the imprimatur of high officials." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imprimatur
  • The catachism and all it's revisions even unto the Early Church

I intend to use some of these
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Didn't the R. Catholic church recently apologize for its treatment of the heretic Galileo Gailei and admit that "...si muove ?"
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Personaly, I do not believe the Pope is God on earth and can reveal any new doctrine. I do not believe Peter was the first Pope, he had a wife, and Jesus said on this Rock, meaning the statement Peter said about him being the Messiah, not on Peter's name, which is stone, like a little stone, not rock. The whole foundation for the Church is Jesus Christ, no other foundation is to be laid but that, and that is scriptural. I stand on the word of God alone, Christ alone, faith alone, works being an outward manifestation of that faith, but not the cause of our faith. There is one mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ, we pray directly through Him, He only can forgive sins, not a priest, Mary offered a sin offering for her sin, she is not sinless, nor to be worshipped, The wafer and the wine do not become Christ's body and blood when we take it, thus pulling him down from heaven and sacrificing him again, he made one sacrifice, once for all and sat down at the right hand of God the Father. I call no man Father, but God, that is scriptural. I add nothing to Christ's payment for our sins on the cross, not faith plus works, sacrements, the church, or anything else, faith alone, in Christ alone, and the word of God alone as my source of authority. But that's just me, disagree if you want, I won't argue, read the Bible for yourself, the BIble, the Bible, the Bible, contains all the answers. PEACE!
 

Ulver

Active Member
joeboonda said:
Personaly, I do not believe the Pope is God on earth and can reveal any new doctrine. I do not believe Peter was the first Pope, he had a wife, and Jesus said on this Rock, meaning the statement Peter said about him being the Messiah, not on Peter's name, which is stone, like a little stone, not rock. The whole foundation for the Church is Jesus Christ, no other foundation is to be laid but that, and that is scriptural. I stand on the word of God alone, Christ alone, faith alone, works being an outward manifestation of that faith, but not the cause of our faith. There is one mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ, we pray directly through Him, He only can forgive sins, not a priest, Mary offered a sin offering for her sin, she is not sinless, nor to be worshipped, The wafer and the wine do not become Christ's body and blood when we take it, thus pulling him down from heaven and sacrificing him again, he made one sacrifice, once for all and sat down at the right hand of God the Father. I call no man Father, but God, that is scriptural. I add nothing to Christ's payment for our sins on the cross, not faith plus works, sacrements, the church, or anything else, faith alone, in Christ alone, and the word of God alone as my source of authority. But that's just me, disagree if you want, I won't argue, read the Bible for yourself, the BIble, the Bible, the Bible, contains all the answers. PEACE!

Thank you for offering your Mantra and Creed.... yet that provides little help to a debate on catholic doctrine and whether it has changed or not.

np: Wilco- Radio Cure
 

Uncertaindrummer

Active Member
Seyorni said:
Didn't the R. Catholic church recently apologize for its treatment of the heretic Galileo Gailei and admit that "...si muove ?"
Yes. This has nothing to do with doctrine. The Church did not say "it is a matter of Faith and morals that all Catholics must denounce Galileo". In fact, the Church never said anything on the matter, really.
 

Uncertaindrummer

Active Member
joeboonda said:
Personaly, I do not believe the Pope is God on earth and can reveal any new doctrine.
Neither do we.

I do not believe Peter was the first Pope, he had a wife,
So? Plenty of Popes had wives.

and Jesus said on this Rock, meaning the statement Peter said about him being the Messiah, not on Peter's name, which is stone, like a little stone, not rock.
No, there is nothing in the text to support such a notion. Besides the fact that Jesus spoke Aramic (in which there is only one word for rock, "kepha"), the whole petra/petros argument fails on a million other counts too, which I hope I don't have to get into. Most Protestant apologists even admit that Jesus was not attempting to do anything but signify Peter.



I stand on the word of God alone,
What Word of God? The Bible? Who says that the Bible is the word of God?

faith alone,
Even though the Bible specifically says we are NOT justified by Faith alone? (James 2:24)

works being an outward manifestation of that faith, but not the cause of our faith.
Of course they are not the cause of our Faith. God's grace is.

There is one mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ,
No argument there.

we pray directly through Him, He only can forgive sins, not a priest,
How many misconceptions can you possibly have up your sleeve? The priest doesn't forgive your sins, God does.

Mary offered a sin offering for her sin,
Entirely untrue.

she is not sinless,
Says who?

nor to be worshipped,
Of course not. God is to be worhsipped. Only God.

The wafer and the wine do not become Christ's body and blood when we take it,
No? Then why did Jesus SAY they do? John 6, my friend. And why would Paul say that whoever eats a worthless wafer and some everyday wine unworthily would be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord?! The simple answer is: he WOULDN'T do that.

thus pulling him down from heaven and sacrificing him again,
:rolleyes: Come on. Show some intelligence here. No one says we sacrifice Him again.

he made one sacrifice, once for all and sat down at the right hand of God the Father.
Sure. Obviously.

I call no man Father, but God, that is scriptural.
It is also "scriptural" (from that line of reasoning) to call no one teacher. And if we are to LITERALLY call no one "father", why did Paul tell us that he became our father in Christ? Why did person after person at numerous points in the Bible refer to someone as "father"? Because its un-Scriptural?

I add nothing to Christ's payment for our sins on the cross, not faith plus works,
Whoa, wait. You just said you add nothing to His work. And yet you tried to slip a fast one by not remembering that you are trying to add your FAITH.

sacrements,
The Sacraments are Biblical. "...Baptism, which SAVES YOU NOW". "Whoever's sins you forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins you retain are retained", etc. etc.

the church,
The Church? You don't need the CHURCH?! You don't need the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH!? 1 Timothy 3: 15. The Church that Jesus founded on a rock? (Matthew 16: 15-19) The Church we are to turn to when one of our brothers is misguided? (Matthew 18)

faith alone,
Why? Where in the Bible does it say we are to be saved by Faith alone? The only time in the entire NT that the word "alone" comes after "Faith" is James 2: 24 where James, in the strongest terms possible, CONDEMNS the notion.

in Christ alone, and the word of God alone as my source of authority.
Okay, then here's a question. Where in the Word of God does it SAY what the Word of God is? Oh, there's no inspired "Table of contents" in the Bible? Interesting... So where do you get your knowledge of the Bible?

But that's just me, disagree if you want, I won't argue, read the Bible for yourself, the BIble, the Bible, the Bible, contains all the answers.
I read the Bible plenty. But no prophecy of Scripture is to be of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:19-21). You are not interpreting it privately are you? That would be a shame.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
I stand by what I said, when one goes to confession, the priest tells them their sins our forgiven them, I dont need a priest I can pray straight to God.

Epesians 2:8,9 says we are saved by grace through faith and not of works lest any man should boast.

When you add anything to simple belief in, trusting in, what Christ did on the cross, you take away from what he did, and add something else to it, taking away from him the glory alone.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. I Cor. 3:11.
And Simon Peter answered and said; Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Mat 16:16
This is what Christ built th church on, on Christ.

Jesus said to take communion in remembrance of him, it is blasphemy to say the wafer and wine become his flesh and blood, if that were so, he would be being sacrificed again.

The moment a person believes in Christ, that person is saved, Baptism is an outward expression of that faith and is symbolic, the church does not save us, works do not save us, sacrements do not save us, only by accepting the free gift of Christ's sacrifice on the cross are we saved, as by his blood only.

You have the right to your belief, I will not argue it here, as I see that is not the forum, I will agree to disagree with you.
 

Uncertaindrummer

Active Member
joeboonda said:
I stand by what I said, when one goes to confession, the priest tells them their sins our forgiven them, I dont need a priest I can pray straight to God.
You stand by your error? I am a Catholic and I am TELLING you we don't believe the priest personally forgives sin. It coems from God.

Epesians 2:8,9 says we are saved by grace through faith and not of works lest any man should boast.
I entirely agree with that. How about reading Ephesians 2: 8-10

When you add anything to simple belief in, trusting in, what Christ did on the cross, you take away from what he did, and add something else to it, taking away from him the glory alone.
No, you don't.


Jesus said to take communion in remembrance of him, it is blasphemy to say the wafer and wine become his flesh and blood, if that were so, he would be being sacrificed again.
No, He wouldn't be. If it is blasphemy to believe such a thing, why did Jesus TELL us to believe it? You have no basis for your claims and refuse to argue from the Bible. I have given you verse after verse showing my position, and you can't even answer a simple question I ask such as "Why do you believe in the Bible"?

The moment a person believes in Christ, that person is saved, Baptism is an outward expression of that faith and is symbolic, the church does not save us, works do not save us, sacrements do not save us, only by accepting the free gift of Christ's sacrifice on the cross are we saved, as by his blood only.
WORDS. Nothing but WORDS. How about showing me why this is true? I gave you a passage which SPECIFICALLY SAYS Baptism saves us!! And you have given me nothing but your own opinions based upon... nothing.

You have the right to your belief, I will not argue it here, as I see that is not the forum, I will agree to disagree with you.
Why is this not the forum? You gave me no answers. You basically said "No, your wrong". You claim the Bible is the Word of God then you don't listen to it. "You see then that a man is justified by WORKS and NOT by Faith Alone". "My flesh is true food, mmy blood, true drink" "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no lfie in you" "This prefigured Baptism, which saves you now" "The Church, the house of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of truth" "Whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you retain they are retained" "He who listens to you listens to me, he who rejects you, rejects Me"

There you go, Joeboonda. That is what I believe, all STRAIGHT out of the Bible, instead of mere opinions with as of yet no basis.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
I get my doctine straight from the Bible, too. I interperet it differently than you, that is all. I am glad you use the Bible to back up your religion, that is very good. I contend that Ephesians 2:8-10 teaches we are saved by grace (lest any man should boast) UNTO good works. The works are a result of our salvation. I agree, if a man SAYS he is saved, yet has not works, the evidence of his faith, then I must question it. I am very glad you do not believe Priests forgive sins, although they will say, "your sins are forgiven..."
Jesus said to take communion in remembrance of him, at the last supper, when he talked of people eating his flesh and drinking his blood, was in another scene, where he was telling them they must believe in him for salvation, and many took it literaly and walked away. He was getting the point across that HE is the way, he wasn't even talking about communion.
All through John, Jesus repeats over and over, He that belives in me hath eternal life. His focus is on him, not on baptism or the church. The church is everyone who has accepted Christ, not just the catholic church. We are the church. We are his temple.
I will continue to place my faith in his redemptive work on the cross, and nothing else. But I see where you are coming from, lets not argue anymore, I think we both have some good points here, and probably agree on more things than we disagree on. Sorry I did not use more verses, time did not permit, I am glad you fight for your beliefs, and you do it well. PEACE!
 

Uncertaindrummer

Active Member
joeboonda said:
I get my doctine straight from the Bible, too. I interperet it differently than you, that is all. I am glad you use the Bible to back up your religion, that is very good. I contend that Ephesians 2:8-10 teaches we are saved by grace (lest any man should boast) UNTO good works. The works are a result of our salvation. I agree, if a man SAYS he is saved, yet has not works, the evidence of his faith, then I must question it. I am very glad you do not believe Priests forgive sins, although they will say, "your sins are forgiven..."
Jesus said to take communion in remembrance of him, at the last supper, when he talked of people eating his flesh and drinking his blood, was in another scene, where he was telling them they must believe in him for salvation, and many took it literaly and walked away. He was getting the point across that HE is the way, he wasn't even talking about communion.
All through John, Jesus repeats over and over, He that belives in me hath eternal life. His focus is on him, not on baptism or the church. The church is everyone who has accepted Christ, not just the catholic church. We are the church. We are his temple.
I will continue to place my faith in his redemptive work on the cross, and nothing else. But I see where you are coming from, lets not argue anymore, I think we both have some good points here, and probably agree on more things than we disagree on. Sorry I did not use more verses, time did not permit, I am glad you fight for your beliefs, and you do it well. PEACE!
I am not going to argue with your beliefs anymore, because you obviously aren't in the mood, but I do have one question: If you interpret it differently than me, who's right?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Victor said:
Fair enough. Pah, thanks for your willingness to cooperate in such a mutual exchange.

Here is what is considered doctrine:
  • When the Pope speaks as the universal teacher from the Chair of Peter in defining faith and morals does so with an infallible charism with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Infallibility, in a sense, is a negative gift. It doesn't mean he always says the right thing, at the right time; but that when he speaks with the authority that Christ gives to him, we have this Divine guarantee, because Christ promises that "I will build my Church." The key word is "defines." Defining something is not the same as stating, teaching, declaring, condemning, or what have you. To further clarify catholic answers says, in order for him to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church, the pope must express himself in such a way that the faithful can know with certitude that he holds a particular proposition to have a particular doctrinal note (de fide, certain, false, proximate to heresy, heretical, et cetera). The faithful are then required to regard it likewise. If the faithful cannot know from what the pope says that a particular proposition is to be regarded in a particular way, then the pope has not defined the matter for the universal Church and thus has not spoken infallibly. If I remember correctly I believe that the Pope has only used this gift 2 times in Church history. The others decision were made in Councils.
  • Infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope. Usually held as an ecumenical council.
Hope this clarifies. If it doesn't then ask questions so we can get this out of the way.

~Victor
Victor,

I've got to admit that I'm a little bit confused as to what you're trying to say. If you are saying that the Roman Catholic Church has never formally changed a doctrine once it has been officially defined, I'm not prepared to reture that at all. But I do believe that there are a great many Catholic doctrines that we not always Catholic doctrines. I further believe that there are many Catholic doctrines that were taught neither by Jesus Christ or by His Apostles. I can name perhaps a dozen of these off the top of my head. Nevertheless, since I'm not even sure this is what you mean when you say that Catholic Church has never changed its doctrines, I won't list them at this point. Besides, whenever I've had a discussion with a Catholic on this topic in the past, the standard answer has been, "That's always been doctrine. There was just no official statement on the subject until [fill in the applicable date]. And that statement was made to refute heresy." Most of the time, though, no one has been able to convince me that the doctrine the "official" statement is refuting was heresy in the first place. If you'll let me know whether I'm even understanding your position correctly, I might be inclined to debate the matter with you. I just don't want to start in until I'm sure I'm following what you're trying to say.

Kathryn
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
IacobPersul said:
if the Roman Catholic Church has never changed doctrine how is it that Papal Infallibility was unheard of prior to Vatican 1 and that's its introduction caused such an uproar at the time?

James
Shame on you James. You should know better. You know full well that Infallibity was something KNOWN before it was defined (Pope Leo the Great ring a bell). Uproars are common in the East and West. Are you gonna sit there and pretend that everyhthing is fine and danddy in the East.....please don't.

~Victor
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Pah said:
Victor,

I understand infalliablity to be ex catherdra which is not a spiritual attribute of Bishop or Cardinal at any time. The Pope has it and it's been used twice. Whatever.

Perhaps you can tell me the sources of evidence you think as being authorative for Catholic doctrine.
  • Papal Bulls
  • writings of Counsel procedings
  • Vatican I
  • Vatican II
  • Doctrine established in Early Church writings
  • Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and it's predecessors
  • AmericanCatholic.org, when it speaks of doctrine
  • New Advent when it speaks of doctrine
  • Other sources of writings carrying the Nihil Obstat, defined as "1. Roman Catholic Church An attestation by a church censor that a book contains nothing damaging to faith or morals.", and Imprimatur defined as "1. Official approval or license to print or publish, especially under conditions of censorship. 2.a. Official approval; sanction.
    2.b. A mark of official approval: a directive bearing the imprimatur of high officials." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imprimatur
  • The catachism and all it's revisions even unto the Early Church
I intend to use some of these
We debate by what the Church perscribed or we don't at all.
New Advent - can be wrong
The Cathecism - can be wrong
AmericanCatholic - can be wrong

You get the picture? If you have any questions then note them and I will try to clarify.

~Victor
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Uncertaindrummer said:
Yes. This has nothing to do with doctrine. The Church did not say "it is a matter of Faith and morals that all Catholics must denounce Galileo". In fact, the Church never said anything on the matter, really.
The Inquisition condemned Galileo for promoting the heretical doctrine that the earth moved. They cited biblical passages as support for the Church's orthodox and inerrant doctrine that the Earth was fixed in space.
 
Top