Catholic Church has never Changed doctrine.

[Quiddity]

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.

Seyorni, I have noted in one of my beginning posts what is considered official. Deviating from that is your prerogative. But you will get nowhere with Catholics unless you stick to what is prescribed.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

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!

As Seyorni says "Words fail me..."
Not only that but you are only proving Seyorni correct when he said:"
"You've brought up a very important point, Ceridwen. People of faith know what they believe and seek evidence or text to support it. They do not seek to test it and ignore or explain away all evidence that would tend to falsify it."
Thank you for contributing to proving Seyorni right....

You seriously need to start looking into the real world as well. God created both objective and subjective realites. So deal with both.

~Victor

 

[Feathers in Hair]

****MOD POST****

Personal attacks neither contribute toward furthering the understanding of one another or to helping the other person. Please refrain from using them in the future.

Thanks in advance for remembering this.

 

[Quiddity]

****MOD POST****

Personal attacks neither contribute toward furthering the understanding of one another or to helping the other person. Please refrain from using them in the future.

Thanks in advance for remembering this.

I will refrain, but you should of done this a while back.

~Victor

 

[Valjean]

Please clarify your apparent assertion that Galileo was not condemned on doctrinal grounds for his assertion that the Earth moved (heliocentricity/Copernicanism was a secondary issue). The Inquisition's jurisdiction did not include scientific or secular disputes except inasmuch as they contained Doctrinal Heresy.

Galileo's long dance with two Popes, The Jesuits and the Inquisition was more convoluted than a modern soap-opera. At his trial there was no need for torture -- Galileo was practically soiling his robe. He readily recanted and was lucky to get off with house arrest.

 

[Quiddity]

Please clarify your apparent assertion that Galileo was not condemned on doctrinal grounds for his assertion that the Earth moved (heliocentricity/Copernicanism was a secondary issue). The Inquisition's jurisdiction did not include scientific or secular disputes except inasmuch as they contained Doctrinal Heresy.

Galileo's long dance with two Popes, The Jesuits and the Inquisition was more convoluted than a modern soap-opera. At his trial there was no need for torture -- Galileo was practically soiling his robe. He readily recanted and was lucky to get off with house arrest.

I stated the grounds and gave you a link. What else do you want? That is not doctrine Seyorni. That was a matter of discipline and science. The Church can be wrong in those cases.

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

I stated the grounds and gave you a link. What else do you want? That is not doctrine Seyorni. That was a matter of discipline and science. The Church can be wrong in those cases.

~Victor

Victor,

Could you explain exactly what you mean by the word "doctrine"? To me, "doctrine" represents the "official teaching" of a church. I think you may save yourself a lot of grief by defining the term right up front. That way, you won't constantly be having to say, "That's not doctrine." (I sort of learned that the hard way. )

Kathryn

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Victor, I apologize. I'm sure I should have done that awhile back, but since I know nothing of Catholic doctrine, I didn't enter the thread. I'm very sorry if it looked like I was referring to you, but it was more directed at everyone (myself included) in general.

 

[Sabio]

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

One of the excellent changes in Catholic doctrine is that the Church now encourages study of the Bible, but when my mother and mother in law were young (1930's) Catholics were taught that they could not understand the bible and it should be interpreted by a priest. My mother was orphaned and raised in a convent for most of her childhood, and they were not allowed or encouraged to study the Bible, they were only taught church doctrine and tradition, only those Nuns holding the highest positions were allowed to read or teach scripture. My mother is now a very happy Lutheran who reads the Bible regularly. My mother in law is now a "saved" Catholic who is assured of her salvation and attends weekly Bible study at her Parish. Praise God!


Sabio

 

[Quiddity]

One of the excellent changes in Catholic doctrine is that the Church now encourages study of the Bible, but when my mother and mother in law were young (1930's) Catholics were taught that they could not understand the bible and it should be interpreted by a priest. My mother was orphaned and raised in a convent for most of her childhood, and they were not allowed or encouraged to study the Bible, they were only taught church doctrine and tradition, only those Nuns holding the highest positions were allowed to read or teach scripture. My mother is now a very happy Lutheran who reads the Bible regularly. My mother in law is now a "saved" Catholic who is assured of her salvation and attends weekly Bible study at her Parish. Praise God!


Sabio

Huge SIGH. THIS IS NOT DOCTRINE !!!!

Katzpur has made an excellent point. I should clarify some more. I thought I did that in the beggining with what you just posted Sabio. Read it again.
I will come back and try to be MORE clear.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, I apologize. I'm sure I should have done that awhile back, but since I know nothing of Catholic doctrine, I didn't enter the thread. I'm very sorry if it looked like I was referring to you, but it was more directed at everyone (myself included) in general.

It's ok FeathersinHair, thanks though.

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

One of the excellent changes in Catholic doctrine is that the Church now encourages study of the Bible, but when my mother and mother in law were young (1930's) Catholics were taught that they could not understand the bible and it should be interpreted by a priest. My mother was orphaned and raised in a convent for most of her childhood, and they were not allowed or encouraged to study the Bible, they were only taught church doctrine and tradition, only those Nuns holding the highest positions were allowed to read or teach scripture. My mother is now a very happy Lutheran who reads the Bible regularly. My mother in law is now a "saved" Catholic who is assured of her salvation and attends weekly Bible study at her Parish. Praise God!

This is the kind of thing that I don't see qualifying as "doctrine." To me, this is a practice or a policy. Obviously, most churches occasionally change their practices or policies, whether for valid reasons or not. But in my opinion, encouraging people to read the Bible or discouraging them from doing so is simply not a doctrinal issue at all. That's why I would like to see Victor (or another Catholic) start by defining the term "doctrine." Otherwise, this debate is never going to really go anywhere worthwhile.

 

[Quiddity]

This is the kind of thing that I don't see qualifying as "doctrine." To me, this is a practice or a policy. Obviously, most churches occasionally change their practices or policies, whether for valid reasons or not. But in my opinion, encouraging people to read the Bible or discouraging them from doing so is simply not a doctrinal issue at all. That's why I would like to see Victor (or another Catholic) start by defining the term "doctrine." Otherwise, this debate is never going to really go anywhere worthwhile.

Thank you Katzpur. I will come back and try to do that but please read my post that reads:

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.

This is a good start to understand what is doctrine. That why I asked Pah if he needed more clarification.

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you Katzpur. I will come back and try to do that but please read my post that reads:

This is a good start to understand what is doctrine. That why I asked Pah if he needed more clarification.

~Victor

I'm sorry, Victor. I did read that, and it didn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're stating that the Pope is infallible when speaking "ex cathdra," I know what you mean. But I'm not even sure that's what your post was saying. (I guess I'm kinda dense!)

Also, did you read my first post in this thread? You seem to have responsed to most of the posts, but not to mine.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

One of the excellent changes in Catholic doctrine is that the Church now encourages study of the Bible, but when my mother and mother in law were young (1930's) Catholics were taught that they could not understand the bible and it should be interpreted by a priest. My mother was orphaned and raised in a convent for most of her childhood, and they were not allowed or encouraged to study the Bible, they were only taught church doctrine and tradition, only those Nuns holding the highest positions were allowed to read or teach scripture. My mother is now a very happy Lutheran who reads the Bible regularly. My mother in law is now a "saved" Catholic who is assured of her salvation and attends weekly Bible study at her Parish. Praise God!


Sabio

Can we ever keep anything on topic? First off, it is simply not true that the Church has EVER advocated the Bible being too "complicated". Second, No Catholic has an "assurance" of salvation unless you meean a moral assurance that we can always get it if we want it. Thirdly, none of this has anything to do with the Churche's doctrtines anyway.

I am sure Vic will clear things up more, but here is a basic idea. Doctrines are those things which have to be BELIEVED. Not practices, dicsplines, customs or general thoguhts on what is good in life, but those things which one must believe to be a Catholic, such as Jesus' Divinity, The Trinity, the Incarnation, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, the Sacraments, etc.

This is a crappy definition and would not stand up to rebuke but it is an unscholarly general idea. Doctrines are those things which must be believed by Catholics to call themselves Catholics.

 

[Pah]

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

Ah Victor. The Cathecism? Perhaps you should tell Scott it can be wrong and probably shouldn't use it to tell us (or teach others in a church setting) what Church doctrine is.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=r...holic/imprimatur.html&ei=_AgEQ_WQO8r0aKWV-f4N

The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to to[sic] guarantee them the "objective possibility of professing the true faith without error" (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their "okay" if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: "Title IV: The Means of Social Communication," ¶ 822-832)

The "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.

While you may not agree with what is said and it may not be "official", New Advent, and The Cathecism do still hold a Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur. Being based on Canon, it seems you are bound to accept them as teaching authority. I will remove AmericanCatholic from my research list as I did not see the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur on the site but I will add, at will, any that carry it.

I will present authoritave material and, frankly, Victor, it does not matter if you disagree. I don't expect you to see the error in your OP statement, but the reader will.

 

[James the Persian]

Victor and UD,

I would just like to answer both your points, even though I have no desire to get involved in most of the arguments which others have provided here as I fail to see how they imply the RCC has changed doctrine. Simply believing that your personal doctrine is correct and the original one without any evidence to back it up doesn't prove the RCC changed anything - it could just as easily (in fact more probably) be that your doctrine is incorrect. This sums up most of the Protestant arguments I've seen here.

Firstly, however, I was asked if (assuming that the Pope had some authority over the Church prior to the Schism) that would imply he had some measure of infallibility. The answer is no. Doctrinal decisions were made by councils, often with no input from the Pope, and so even if he had ultimate authority he could not be said to be infallible - this is true only of the Church as a whole and not of any one man (and for the umpteenth time, I don't believe this was merely of honour - some Orthodox go too far on this - but that he had limited authority in being a bishop called on to settle disputes, having the right to chair a council etc. Where you and I disagree is that he had any right to interfere in and lord it over the other Patriarchates or that the Pope is in any way superior to the other bishops. His role was precisely that of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Orthodox Church since the Schism - and you know I can find at least as many Patristic proof texts as you in this argument). I can see no justification whatsoever, given the conciliar nature of the early Church, for the idea of Papal Infallibility.

You also claimed that the idea of Papal Infallibility was known before its definition. I would strongly dispute this and the reaction of eminent Roman Catholic theologians to the Vatican 1 council would seem to support this (if you haven't done so I would suggest reading up on the history of this council - I can provide some suggested reading if you like). As for Pope Leo, he made a claim to Papal Supremacy that was rejected in the East. He may or may not have included infallibility in this, but either way (unless you accept that he really was infallible, which would be circular logic) then this remains just that - a claim made by one bishop of his own superiority. Many saints and Church Fathers have made errors, and this would be no different. It is the consensus of the Church that matters, not one man's claims. I would turn the question back on you, what of St Gregory the Great's letters to the Patriarchs at the time of John the Faster's being granted the (misunderstood) title of Ecumenical Patriarch? It is hard to see how they can be read in a way that does not condemn Papal Supremacy and Infallibility and he was, of course, a Pope. Then, of course, you'd have to explain events like Pope Honorius' heresy or the period of the Popes and Antipopes - just who had supremacy and infallibility then? The Councils of Constance and Basel clearly do not seem to have been convinced of either the supremacy or infallibility of the Pope either.

I don't expect us to agree, otherwise the Schism would be rather easy to heal, but don't try and pretend that my arguments are blind prejudices - my opinions are based on my study of Church history and incur no shame on me, despite your comments Victor. If you two can discuss things without the flippant remarks and personal denigrations then I am willing to discuss things further. Otherwise I will leve this thread here because I don't appreciate being treated like an anti-Catholic Protestant with no understanding of the history of these issues.

James

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

don't expect us to agree, otherwise the Schism would be rather easy to heal, but don't try and pretend that my arguments are blind prejudices - my opinions are based on my study of Church history and incur no shame on me, despite your comments Victor. If you two can discuss things without the flippant remarks and personal denigrations then I am willing to discuss things further. Otherwise I will leve this thread here because I don't appreciate being treated like an anti-Catholic Protestant with no understanding of the history of these issues.

I don't recall treating you like an anti-Catholic protestant, but whatever. You obviously understand the issues, I don't recall saying you didn't. I was only asking your position on something and as usual you turn extremely defensive.

Either way, the arguments from Papal Infallibility still stem from Authority. If the Pope had the Authority over the Whole Church that the Catholic Church claims it does, Infallibility follows pretty easily, IMO. And obviously I think it does due to such exhortations of the Pope's authority as from Abbot Theodore of Studion in 817. "You are Peter," the letter to Pope Paschal I read, "pre-eminently holy, the great light, the supreme Bishop, and our Lord...the key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, the rock of Faith upon which the Catholic Church was built".

We obviously see things differently because I can't look at a letter like this and not think "authority".

As for your notion that the Bishops had councils without the Approval of the Pope, THAT I have seen no evidence for, and would be curious what councils you are talking about.

 

[Sabio]

Can we ever keep anything on topic? First off, it is simply not true that the Church has EVER advocated the Bible being too "complicated". Second, No Catholic has an "assurance" of salvation unless you meean a moral assurance that we can always get it if we want it. Thirdly, none of this has anything to do with the Churche's doctrtines anyway.

I am sure Vic will clear things up more, but here is a basic idea. Doctrines are those things which have to be BELIEVED. Not practices, dicsplines, customs or general thoguhts on what is good in life, but those things which one must believe to be a Catholic, such as Jesus' Divinity, The Trinity, the Incarnation, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, the Sacraments, etc.

This is a crappy definition and would not stand up to rebuke but it is an unscholarly general idea. Doctrines are those things which must be believed by Catholics to call themselves Catholics.

Please take a "Catholic" compliment gracefully, wether it was a doctrine or tradition it was a good decision on the part of the Catholic leadership to change policy and encourage Catholics to read their Bibles. I don't think you want to debate here the countless historical records of the Catholic Church suppressing the reading of the Bible by laity. I'm sorry that you do not believe in the assurance of savlation, it must be very unnerving as a Christian.

Sabio

 

[joeboonda]

I will try to get on topic as soon as I can, but I just wanted to say my parents had the same problem many years ago, not until they began reading the Bible for themselves did they see what they perceived to be errors in catholic doctrine and became protestants, and they, too, feel assurance of their salvation like never before. I must say, however, that I DO like Mel Gibson, he is cooooool!