Catholic Church has never Changed doctrine.

[Pah]

Victor,

Thank you for your effort but I think the point is made. Doctrine does change and the definitive list of authority is not needed.

...Catholic doctrine has MOST CERTAINLY changed over the years, and I'm kinda confused as to the point of this thread....
Scott

... Doctrine is the teaching of dogma.

Doctrine changes because dogma, never considered a change, is a truth further defined.

Do I have the position of the Catholic Church correct?

Without looking for loopholes and things wrong, this could be a workable definition. But since you seem to be having this argument with Vic you mgiht wanna wait for him.

Bob

 

[Katzpur]

Katzpur, sorry I wasn't trying to ignore you. I hope the above answers your questions. Please let me know.

~Victor

Well, yes and no.

Code of Canon Lawprovides that "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such"

Are we to assume, then, that until a specific teaching has been officially established as Catholic dogma, that it cannot be considered to be doctrinally binding on Catholics? I'm not sure I worded this as well as I might have, but I would prefer not to provide you with a myriad of examples until I hear your answer. I suppose that the Immaculate Conception would be such a doctrine. If I am understanding your quote correctly, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not a doctrine at all until it was "clearly established as such." If this is the case, what were the beliefs of Catholics on this subject prior to when it was established as doctrine? On what did they base their beliefs? (Uncertain Drummer was going to start a new thread on this topic a week ago. I don't know if you'd prefer to do that now, or just continue with the discussion on this thread.)

Kathryn

 

[Quiddity]

Victor,

Thank you for your effort but I think the point is made. Doctrine does change and the definitive list of authority is not needed.



Bob

Ok, but do understand that when you say that the Catholic Church used to promote abortion that is not at all what Scott meant by change.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Are we to assume, then, that until a specific teaching has been officially established as Catholic dogma, that it cannot be considered to be doctrinally binding on Catholics?

It's still binding.

I'm not sure I worded this as well as I might have, but I would prefer not to provide you with a myriad of examples until I hear your answer. I suppose that the Immaculate Conception would be such a doctrine. If I am understanding your quote correctly, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not a doctrine at all until it was "clearly established as such."

It was a doctrine before it was defined. Just like the Trinity was a doctrine before it was more clearly defined in the Council of Nicea 325 A.D.

If this is the case, what were the beliefs of Catholics on this subject prior to when it was established as doctrine?

Doctrine can be seen in early Church writings. This is why it baffles me that some say that the Catholic Church fabricated it's doctrines. The Catholic Church has not hidden it's bad things nor it's good things. It's there for all to see.

On what did they base their beliefs? (Uncertain Drummer was going to start a new thread on this topic a week ago. I don't know if you'd prefer to do that now, or just continue with the discussion on this thread.)

Kathryn

Great questions Katzpur..

They based their beliefs on oral preaching and on the writings they had at the time. This is what I meant by the conciousness of the Church.

Hope this further clarifies.

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

It's still binding.

I asked, "Are we to assume, then, that until a specific teaching has been officially established as Catholic dogma, that it cannot be considered doctrinally binding on Catholics."

Your answer ("It's still binding,") doesn't make sense. I want to know if it is binding prior to being officially established?

It was a doctrine before it was defined. Just like the Trinity was a doctrine before it was more clearly defined in the Council of Nicea 325 A.D.

I'm sorry, Victor, but it sounds to me as if you're contradicting yourself. You just got through saying, "The Code of Canon Law provides that no doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such."

So which is it? Is a doctrine considered to be official prior to being defined or not?

About the Trinity... Would you care to offer some proof of your statement? Something from say, 100 A.D. or prior? Something taught by the Apostles or their contemporaries?

Doctrine can be seen in early Church writings.

Well, I guess it all depends on how you define the word "early." To me, the opinion of the great- great- great- great-grandson of someone living in 34 A.D. doesn't exactly qualify.

They based their beliefs on oral preaching and on the writings they had at the time. This is what I meant by the conciousness of the Church.

Well, it certainly appears as if we need to talk more, huh? But thanks for your input so far, Victor.

Kathryn

 

[Quiddity]

I want to know if it is binding prior to being officially established?

Yes it is.

I'm sorry, Victor, but it sounds to me as if you're contradicting yourself. You just got through saying, "The Code of Canon Law provides that no doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such."

So which is it? Is a doctrine considered to be official prior to being defined or not?

About the Trinity... Would you care to offer some proof of your statement? Something from say, 100 A.D. or prior? Something taught by the Apostles or their contemporaries?

I'm not sure exactly what is throwing you off..
Doctrine is binding whether it was further defined or not.
When it says "......established as such". That is talking about if the quality infallibility is established. Not the doctrine. The language of the document would let you know. Establish could be taken to mean that it was just introduced. The INFALLIBILITY of that doctrine was established not the doctrine. Does that help?

Well, I guess it all depends on how you define the word "early." To me, the opinion of the great- great- great- great-grandson of someone living in 34 A.D. doesn't exactly qualify.

Well, it certainly appears as if we need to talk more, huh? But thanks for your input so far, Victor.

Kathryn

Doesn't exactly qualify...

~Victor

 

[Pah]

Ok, but do understand that when you say that the Catholic Church used to promote abortion that is not at all what Scott meant by change.

~Victor

What does that have to do with the topic of the thread? It was a simple question. I haven't addressed the dogma that is behind doctrine.

I would debate that with you but I can not accept the oh, so narrow definition you impose. I feel it is a cop-out to authoritative history. If you would like to do so, I'll debate the dogma regarding the soul, if you can present a definition definition of soul and when it begins - another thread, please. I've finished with this, highly satisfied

 

[Katzpur]

Hi, Victor.

The INFALLIBILITY of that doctrine was established not the doctrine. Does that help?

Maybe a little. I guess it just seems to me that the infallibility of the doctrine would have been established at the time the doctrine was, instead of hundreds of years later. If a doctrine was taught by Jesus Christ or the Apostles, I see no reason for anyone to have to make it official at any time. That's probably where I'm having trouble following your reasoning.

Doesn't exactly qualify...

That's right. I really don't think the average person has any idea how much doctrines evolved without continued revelation and inspiration from God. I know what the creeds have to say about the nature of God, for instance. But I have yet to see an example of one of Christ's Apostles saying anything remotely similar. Each time a new creed is established (supposedly to make an already existing doctine "infallible"), God becomes more and more unknowable. The Apostles' Creed, for example, is a pretty straightforward statement of doctrine that I'd say, for the most part, would be acceptable to all Christians. The Nicene Creed, on the other hand, in an effort to further clarify the nature of God, makes Him even less knowable that He was before. And by the time you get to the Athanasian Creed, it's like you're reading a legal document authored by a serious student of neo-Platonic thought.

And look how the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) attempted to explain how Christ was simultaneously God and man:

"...the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ..."

I wonder if Jesus would even recognize Himself in this statement! Why, if God's nature has always been understood in such terms, wasn't this doctrine established as "infallible" back in, say 50 A.D.? And why don't we have any documents from back in 50 A.D. that say roughly the same thing?

The doctrine of the Trinity is just one example of a doctrine that, in my opinion, was not taught by the Savior during His mortality. I don't believe that His contemporaries thought of the Man they knew and loved as "being of one substance with the Father." I think they had an infinitely better grasp of who our Heavenly Father was and what His relationship was to His Son than did anyone living several hundreds of years later.


It's honestly not my intention to come across as disrespectful. I recognize the fact that we can't fully understand God, but I'll tell you one thing: I think God sincerely wants us to understand Him. That's why I seriously cannot grasp the value of any writing that makes him even more "unknowable" than He already is.


By the way, I am still waiting for a thread -- or additional comments on this thread -- that would support the doctrine of the Immaculation Conception, as taught by Christ or His Apostles.

Thanks a lot for your time and effort!

Kathryn

 

[Quiddity]

What does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

Simple...Abortion is a doctrinal issue.

It was a simple question. I haven't addressed the dogma that is behind doctrine.

You may find something in your vast library behind you.

I would debate that with you but I can not accept the oh, so narrow definition you impose. I feel it is a cop-out to authoritative history. If you would like to do so, I'll debate the dogma regarding the soul, if you can present a definition definition of soul and when it begins - another thread, please. I've finished with this, highly satisfied

It's designed for people in every stage of life. Even to those who don't have computers or libraries. To each his own.

~Victor

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

Hi, Victor.



Maybe a little. I guess it just seems to me that the infallibility of the doctrine would have been established at the time the doctrine was, instead of hundreds of years later. If a doctrine was taught by Jesus Christ or the Apostles, I see no reason for anyone to have to make it official at any time. That's probably where I'm having trouble following your reasoning.

It is not suddenly "official". It is just correct. I say there is a Trinity. You say there isn't. Now either way, ONE OF THOSE TWO is right. So if the Church infallibly states there IS a Trinity in response to your disbelief, that doesn't make the doctrine suddenly "official". It is merely an attempt to defeat error.

And look how the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) attempted to explain how Christ was simultaneously God and man:

"...the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ..."

I wonder if Jesus would even recognize Himself in this statement!

Why not? It makes perfect sense. Jesus repeatedly referred to Himself as both God and man.

Why, if God's nature has always been understood in such terms, wasn't this doctrine established as "infallible" back in, say 50 A.D.? And why don't we have any documents from back in 50 A.D. that say roughly the same thing?

First off, you don't make a dogma infallible. The Church infallibly defines a dogma. That doesn't make the dogma anymore true. It just let's people KNOW it is true.

On a side note, very few texts PERIOD can be traced back to fifty A.D. I'm sure you would agree that the Christians didn't hand each other notes. The Apostles preached to them, and that was how they learned.

The doctrine of the Trinity is just one example of a doctrine that, in my opinion, was not taught by the Savior during His mortality.

And yet I read the same Gospels and get a totally opposite view. Who is right?

I don't believe that His contemporaries thought of the Man they knew and loved as "being of one substance with the Father." I think they had an infinitely better grasp of who our Heavenly Father was and what His relationship was to His Son than did anyone living several hundreds of years later.

Either way, you read the same thing I read and get a completely different idea.

It's honestly not my intention to come across as disrespectful. I recognize the fact that we can't fully understand God, but I'll tell you one thing: I think God sincerely wants us to understand Him. That's why I seriously cannot grasp the value of any writing that makes him even more "unknowable" than He already is.

What?

By the way, I am still waiting for a thread -- or additional comments on this thread -- that would support the doctrine of the Immaculation Conception, as taught by Christ or His Apostles.

Luke gospel is a great place to start. Also, Mary is the new Eve. Eve is a prefigurement of Mary in the OT. Now in all other cases of prefigurments, the figure itself (i.e. Jesus) is GREATER than the prefigurement. Jesus is the New Adam, He is greater than Adam, because Jesus is without sin. Mary, in the same way, must be greater than Eve. If Mary sinned, she would be no better than. This is not exactly an exhaustive view of the manner, jsut a few basic ideas.

 

[Katzpur]

Hello, Drummer. Thanks for your comments!

It is not suddenly "official". It is just correct. I say there is a Trinity. You say there isn't. Now either way, ONE OF THOSE TWO is right. So if the Church infallibly states there IS a Trinity in response to your disbelief, that doesn't make the doctrine suddenly "official". It is merely an attempt to defeat error.

I realize what you're saying. I just don't see it the same way you do. All I am saying and have ever said is that if the Church says that "there IS a Trinity," it ought to be able to show where Jesus or His Apostles taught the doctrine. But rather than do so, it expands upon the original doctrine.

Why not? It makes perfect sense.

I suppose so. I guess I'm just not quite bright enough to get it.

Jesus repeatedly referred to Himself as both God and man.

And His words I understand!

First off, you don't make a dogma infallible. The Church infallibly defines a dogma. That doesn't make the dogma anymore true. It just let's people KNOW it is true.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

On a side note, very few texts PERIOD can be traced back to fifty A.D. I'm sure you would agree that the Christians didn't hand each other notes. The Apostles preached to them, and that was how they learned.

Yes, I would agree. And that's what's scary. Because not only did the Apostles preach, so did others, men whose doctrines perverted the purity of Christ's gospel.

And yet I read the same Gospels and get a totally opposite view. Who is right?


Either way, you read the same thing I read and get a completely different idea.

Yes, we do.

Luke gospel is a great place to start.

Sounds good to me. Will you start?

Also, Mary is the new Eve. Eve is a prefigurement of Mary in the OT. Now in all other cases of prefigurments, the figure itself (i.e. Jesus) is GREATER than the prefigurement. Jesus is the New Adam, He is greater than Adam, because Jesus is without sin. Mary, in the same way, must be greater than Eve. If Mary sinned, she would be no better than. This is not exactly an exhaustive view of the manner, jsut a few basic ideas.

See, this is what I mean! First off, where on earth is Eve every described as a prefigurement of Mary. And why must Mary be greater than Eve? I'm not saying she wasn't. Obviously, she was a unique woman who was highly favored of God. I'm sure there haven't been many women throughout all of history who could begin to compare to her. But to say that she never, ever sinned? Where does the Bible teach this? When did Jesus teach it? What is the earliest record we have of it being taught?

Looking forward to some good conversation,

Kathryn

 

[James the Persian]

Just noticed this... Forthe last time, Pope Honorious was not a heretic, and that is a historical fact. If you want to argue that he didn't strongly enough condemn a heresy, fine. But he was NOT a heresy and when you repeat something that has been demonstrated to be false before, you sound bigoted. Now I am not saying you are, but it comes across that way. Honorious never subscribed to any heretical beliefs, he merely was too weak to come out and condemn them.

I'm not going to go into all the ins and outs of this as we've done it before. You sound like someone who is rather in denial on this issue. Honorius was undoubtedly and demostrably condemned as a heretic by a Church council. This condemnation was accepted by his successor as Pope of Rome. With respect to my argument it makes no difference whether he actually was a heretic or not - perfectly good Christians have been falsely condemned as such in the past - but it certainly does argue against the Church accepting Papal infallibility in Honorius' time. If the Church and a subsequent Pope could both condemn Honorius as a heretic then they can't have thought him infallible, can they? That was my point and, I'm afraid for your sake, that this is in no way bigotry but an uncomfortable (for the RCC) historical fact.

James

 

[Quiddity]

If the Church and a subsequent Pope could both condemn Honorius as a heretic then they can't have thought him infallible, can they?

James

Why not?

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

it ought to be able to show where Jesus or His Apostles taught the doctrine.

The Trinity is a matter of highly abstract, difficult philosophical theology. We don't understand it fully now. I have no idea how God does such a thing. But there is absolutely no denying that the early Christians taught it.

See, this is what I mean! First off, where on earth is Eve every described as a prefigurement of Mary. And why must Mary be greater than Eve? I'm not saying she wasn't. Obviously, she was a unique woman who was highly favored of God. I'm sure there haven't been many women throughout all of history who could begin to compare to her. But to say that she never, ever sinned? Where does the Bible teach this? When did Jesus teach it? What is the earliest record we have of it being taught?

Do remember Katzpur that doctrine is found in the consciousness of the Church. Not just in a book. This is very important. The Church can't teach anything contrary to scripture and the scriptures are the written part of the consciousness of the Church.

~Victor

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

I'm not going to go into all the ins and outs of this as we've done it before. You sound like someone who is rather in denial on this issue. Honorius was undoubtedly and demostrably condemned as a heretic by a Church council. This condemnation was accepted by his successor as Pope of Rome. With respect to my argument it makes no difference whether he actually was a heretic or not - perfectly good Christians have been falsely condemned as such in the past - but it certainly does argue against the Church accepting Papal infallibility in Honorius' time. If the Church and a subsequent Pope could both condemn Honorius as a heretic then they can't have thought him infallible, can they? That was my point and, I'm afraid for your sake, that this is in no way bigotry but an uncomfortable (for the RCC) historical fact.

James

Not true. The council (if we are talking abotu the Council) did indeed intend to condemn him as a heretic, but the Pope did not approve that version of the documents which were submitted to him. I can go get the info later. Unfortunately don't have tiem right now.

 

[Katzpur]

The Trinity is a matter of highly abstract, difficult philosophical theology. We don't understand it fully now. I have no idea how God does such a thing. But there is absolutely no denying that the early Christians taught it.

Would you mind giving me some examples (along with dates, please), Victor.

Do remember Katzpur that doctrineis found in the consciousness of the Church. Not just in a book. This is very important. The Church can't teach anything contrary to scripture and the scriptures are the written part of the consciousness of the Church.

I don't know what you mean by the phrase "consciousness of the Church." Would you explain?

 

[James the Persian]

Not true. The council (if we are talking abotu the Council) did indeed intend to condemn him as a heretic, but the Pope did not approve that version of the documents which were submitted to him. I can go get the info later. Unfortunately don't have tiem right now.

By all means find them, though it won't actually alter the thrust of my argument. Pope Leo II's words of condemnation with regards to Honorius seem quite specific to me, however, and here is a quote from the (decidedly non-Orthodox) Catholic Encyclopedia on Honorius:

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned.

That seems pretty clear cut to me, so how can you argue that he was not a heretic?

James

 

[Quiddity]

You forgot about me James. See above.

~Victor

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

James, why don't you show me the specific infallible declaration by an ecumenical council that Honorious was a heretic?

If Honorious was a heretic it was only in the sense that he did not fight heretical ideas like he should have. It is clear from his own writings that he did not personally hold heretical beliefs. And we all, at some time or other, do not fight agaisnt erroneous ideas liek we should. We are all cowards and hide. Some just do it more often and at worse times than others.

 

[Pah]

Uncertaindrummer,

I really don't think you'd mind a little history

http://www.sevenverses.com/Christians who Suffered.htm
Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III (680-681)

The Third General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.

Pope Honorius I http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm and following quotes

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a Campanian, consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680).

In the thirteenth session, 28 March, the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and the council added: "Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God", that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious and great emperor, "and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas". These last words are true enough, and if Sergius was to be condemned Honorius could not be rescued. The legates made no objection to his condemnation. The question had indeed arisen unexpectedly out of the reading of Macarius's packet; but the legates must have had instructions from the pope how to act under the circumstances.

But there was no attempt to save the reputation of Honorius, and the petition of George was negatived by the synod. In the final acclamations, anathema to Honorius, among the other heretics, was shouted. The solemn dogmatic decree, signed by the legates, all the bishops, and the emperor, condemns the heretics mentioned by St. Agatho "and also Honorius who was pope of elder Rome", while it enthusiastically accepts the letter of St. Agatho. The council, according to custom, presented an address of congratulation to the emperor, which was signed by all the bishops. In it they have much to say of the victory which Agatho, speaking with the voice of Peter, gained over heresy. They anathematize the heretics by name, Theodore, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, Peter, Cyrus, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things", and Macarius with his followers.

The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius,...and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."

Now that "histoy" has spoken, suppose you gather the records of "the general council which met at Constantinople on 7 Nov., 680." and prove history wrong