I need a brief of summary of everything the Catholic Church messed up on

[johncmcleod]

you can't accept people to have thoughts of their own (okay they are really thoughts of the church)?

Why do people feel the need to change other people to conform to their views? How is this better than what the church is doing?

Normally I don't have too much of a problem disagreeing with me on matters of opinion. But it is a matter of fact, and his incorrectness is dangerous. It is not an opinion that the church teaches it is the ultimate moral authority. I learned in Catholic school that the Catholic position is that the conscience is the highest moral authority, and he doesn't believe that this is true. I simply want to inform him of what the church itself actually believes, because he has a misconception of it. And I think his faith will benefit from it anyway.

Mention Gallileo.

I'm looking more for doctrinal changes (I should've specified that more), because he'll just say "well that was an example of humans in the church making a mistake." Can someone give me links to documents that have outdated doctrine in them, and then a link to a newer document where the position has changed? A good example would be the church's position on who used to go to heaven. I know they used to believe non-Catholics went to hell and now they no longer believe this. This was an example I specifically used and he said "NO! They didn't believe that! Where is your proof? Can someone tell me what these documents are? Another example would be suicide. I know for a fact that Catholics used to believe that everyone who committed suicide went to hell and they don't believe this anymore. Can you give me the documents that state this? And most importantly, can you tell me the document that states that the human conscience is the highest moral authority? This is the type of thing I'm looking for.

the fact they accept evolution nowadays, how they went from literalists to it's inspired.

Again, what are some documents that might say this?

Really, not much has changed over the years with regard to doctrine, so the church can claim that it is infallible there. The crusades, inquisition, suppression of some heresies, etc. have nothing to do doctrine so mentioning this stuff to him will have absolutely no impact.

The closest that I've seen to a change is a clarification of the church's opinion regarding the protestant notion of justification by faith rather than a justification by faith and works.

Changes in doctrine are so rare that I wouldn't be surprised that this is the only change that I see in my lifetime.

But there have been some changes to doctrine, like the ones I mentioned before, and that's what I'm looking for. I'm familiar with the justification by faith alone (protestants) vs. faith and good works (Catholics) debate, but what was the church's old position compared to the new one?

To be honest, that's the part were you give up and start talking about sports or something...

There is no way you can take the coolness high ground on this one, you've spent too much time on poly for that.

I'd say do it subtly. First off, in debating you will never be able to convince him. He won't accept it, period. It's quite obvious.

So you should just subtly point out things if they should emerge. Other than that, don't bother. How good friends are you? LIke really really good friends? He will take it as in you are against his character, because he has absorbed it all so fully, you know, he will feel like every attack against the church or anything is attack against himself. And attacks against him are attacks against the church.

So you will damage the relationship if you aren't extremely good friends and comfortable.

But it's obvious you can't talk him out of thinking what he now thinks. He needs to realize his own ways by himself and you can help him do that by pointing out subtly if such opportunities should arise, but make it so that he thinks he thought himself about that, not that you told him so. This is in a way, one of the best ways of manipulation. Lead him into thinking otherwise, subtly, without traces.

We don't know each other that well, but he has been cool with us disagreeing, he doesn't get mad at all or anything, and I am just going to show him some documents that refute what he's saying, so it should be okay. If this were more opinion, that would be one thing, but this is a debate over a fact (ie what the church's position is on its teachings, it believes that some of its statements are fallible and some are not).

Well, you are wasting your time quite frankly.

First of all, if he is a Catholic he will say that the church has a human nature and a divine nature. The human nature of the church are the people that comprise the church. They are fallen, they will sin they will commit all manner of evil in the course of their lives and over time.

The divine nature of the church is the doctrine of the church and the teachings of the church. Even if we supposed that everyone who became Catholic could perfectly follow everything, it would not make the teachings of the Catholic church any more true. They are true not because of the conduct of those who are Catholic, they are true in themselves and therefore can be the measure by which our conduct can be gaged.

Yeah, but the doctrine isn't always perfect. Most of the church's positions are fallible and have changed.

The only way to pursue this matter is to read up on Catholic sources and what Catholic doctrine actually says. You aren't going to succeed otherwise, and I must also caution you that there are certain consequences to investigating in this fashion.

?

[Ben Kenobi]

Have I always been Catholic? I'm a convert and that's one of the reasons why.

Most of the church's positions are fallible and have changed.

You are going to have to be more specific. What doctrines have changed? How were they changed? When did they change? It's easy to make a blanket statement, but much more difficult to answer all these other questions. This is why I am telling you that you are going to have to look up what the Catholic church actually teaches, which means reading Catholic sources.

If you are serious about this I can start pointing you to some.

Regarding faith and works, it is true that the Catholic position has been clarified, but that's a stretch to say that the doctrine has been changed. The same can be said on the other side of the coin. Really, both teach the same thing if they use different terminology. Both Catholics and protestants believe in justification by the grace of God through faith in Christ.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is not an opinion that the church teaches it is the ultimate moral authority. I learned in Catholic school that the Catholic position is that the conscience is the highest moral authority, and he doesn't believe that this is true

I must be missing something here. God is the highest authority. The Catholic church teaches that there is one church that has been established by Christ to spread the faith to the ends of the earth. As such, the church can be in error but cannot stray from their doctrine. Teachers may teach things improperly, but that does not mean the church as a whole has false doctrine.

Conscience is what has been given to us by God. Without original sin, our conscience would be an infalliable guide, however we can learn to overcome our conscience and ignore what our conscience tells us. Ergo, we must form and informed conscience in coming to understand what is good and evil, and to help us guide in our decisions.

There shouldn't be a conflict between conscience and the doctrine of the church, both are different means by which God can communicate with us.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


True it's a matter of discipline not one of doctrine. The Catholic church has chosen to have celibate priests, but they are not required to do so by the teachings of the church.

They won't force any priests who convert to leave their wives, but they will not allow those who are already priests to marry.

Main Entry: doc·trine
Pronunciation: 'däk-tr&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin doctrina, from doctor
1 archaic : TEACHING, INSTRUCTION
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies


how are the teachings and the structure/traditions of the church seperated from one another? the catholic church is it's teachings. are catholics trying to give jews a run for their money in becoming the religion of interpertation?

[Ben Kenobi]

how are the teachings and the structure/traditions of the church seperated from one another?

That's a very good question. The traditions, what the church does should flow from their doctrines, what the church teaches. For example, the church is entirely consistant with their doctrine in having celibate priests, as their doctrine permits priests to be celibate or married. However, the tradition of the church in requiring celibate priests is not a part of the doctrine. There is no requirement in the doctrine of the church requiring celibate priests, it has been something that the church has chosen to do.

There have been times in the past when the priests have been married, until the church decided that all the priests were to be celibate. However, in no way has the doctrine of the church permitting married or celibate priests has been changed.

Say for example the church was to have a female priest. That would be against the explicit doctrine of the church, which restricts the priesthood to men only. This would be a change in both the doctrine and the traditions of the church.

[johncmcleod]

BK, the Catholic church has changed its views on some positions, like the ones I listed, ie that non-Catholics went to hell, its positions on priestly celibacy, its position that all people who commit suicide go to hell, purgatory and limbo (which were invented as a money making scheme if I remember correctly), and its position on indulgences are just to name the few that I can remember of the top of my head.

BTW the Catholic Church teaches that the conscience is the highest moral authority, I'm positive on this. They believe that the conscience should be well informed with the Church's teachings, and supplementing this through prayer and contemplation will lead the conscience to discover God's moral stance on the issue at hand. They believe this because they believe that the church is fallible and therefore always following it blindly isn't the best idea (and it's intellectually insulting anyway). The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility states that when the pope is speaking ex cathedra (latin for from the chair) he is infallible. He has only done this a few times however, ie with the holy trinity, virgin birth, etc. The rest of the time, he makes statements that are influenced by God but are fallible and not always correct. This allows for positive change and correction and keeps it from being stuck in past centuries.

I am positive on these two things and these are the two main things I am trying to prove to him. I am trying to prove to him that they are the Catholic church's actual positions, but I can't quite remember the documents that state this. I don't have time to do a lot of searching due to being a college athlete and musician at a highly competitive school, so if anyone could tell me which documents they're located in that would be exactly what I'm looking for.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK, the Catholic church has changed its views on some positions, like the ones I listed, ie that non-Catholics went to hell,

That is a long discussion, well deserving it's own thread.

its positions on priestly celibacy

This has already been addressed. The doctrine of the church has always permitted priests to be married or unmarried. The tradition has been for celibate priests.

its position that all people who commit suicide go to hell, purgatory and limbo

Again, a long discussion... before you can really discuss purgatory, hell or limbo you have to first have an understanding of what the Catholic church actually teaches, not just the perception.

and its position on indulgences are just to name the few that I can remember of the top of my head.

Ok. They still do sell indulgences. The abuse of the selling of the indulgences was the problem with Martin Luther, not the indulgences in themselves. It would be like taking something that is good and using it improperly.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2CHURCH.HTM

Regarding the issue of whether the church taught that protestants were going to hell there are two issues here.

First of all is the issue of whether there can in fact be salvation outside of the church. Now, it starts with this passage here:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

This pretty much sums up the teachings of the church on this issue. One can be saved outside of the church as 'many elements of sanctification are found outside the church.' One can be saved by believing in God, even if one is not a Catholic, the same way as one can fall away from the faith even if you have been baptised or confirmed. The Catholic church is not a guarantee to heaven, and neither does it restrict those whom will be saved.

The church has always taught that salvation may be obtained outside the church, this was the teachings of St. Augustine back in 400 ad, when it became church doctrine in the first place.

[Barnabas]

You cant really call that changing the doctrine

The church used to say, that only thru the catholic church people can be saved, it used to be read as only catholics can be saved ( and only a small fraction of the catholics are actually saved)

Now it is read as non catholics may be saved, but if they are saved it is thru the catholic church, after all the pope has thhe keys, in a whether they like it or not way (being saved by the C church), kind of similar to mormons who baptize after dead non mormons.

The church always had a concept of absolute ignorance, that absolutely ignorant people (ignorant about jesus), like for example pre columbian amerindians, can be saved if they follow natural law the best they can even if they are not members of the catholic church, and that is a very old doctrine.



The text/s didnt/dont change, but it was ambiguous enough to give different readings.

In the past century the ambiguousness of some statements of the church has been intentional, when the assumption of mary was declared dogma, it was not mentioned wether she was assumed before or after dying, because the orthodox believe she did die, so, for ecumenical reasons lets better not mention that so that we wont have a problem with the orthodox in the future.

You may find different interpretations of a same texts, on which no infallible pronouncement has been made, but there is nothing wrong witht hat.

Nothing is infallible until the pope says thats the way it is, (and also for practical reasons things always practiced and never challenged, infallible statements are few)

Sorry for mispellings etc

[Barnabas]

Ben

"although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure"

Elements of sactification and truth only means an acknowledgement of the presence of proper sacarments in some denominations (like eastern orthodox, copts, schismatic catholics etc), and even more obvious things like the baptism in the name of the father spirit and son practiced in most christian churches (catholic, orthodox and protestant ), and even the monotheism of muslims may be seen as an element of truth

[Ben Kenobi]

The document above that I cited goes in considerable more detail later on. I've only cited this one snippet since it condenses a considerable number of teachings.

If there were no salvation outside of the visible Catholic church, then how could God save Abraham? The church has always taught that people can be saved outside of the church, the same way as Abraham was through faith in God.

[Barnabas]

I agree that there is salvation outside the church

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
BTW the Catholic Church teaches that the conscience is the highest moral authority, I'm positive on this.

Sorry, but I think you'll find that's mistaken.

1 Corinthians 4:4
My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2CHURCH.HTM

LUMEN GENTIUM
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
Second Vatican Council
In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

Conscience is all very well, but it does not supercede the humble accession of the will to Church doctrine.

I'm not doubting what you may have been told in the past. But, well, we all tend to hear what we want to hear. And memory is never perfect.

I'd suggest checking your facts with a local preist.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
BK, the Catholic church has changed its views on some positions,

ibid

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.

I'm not going to try and interpret this, but it would seem to contradict the idea that the Church can revoke her own dogma.

[Terra Nullius]

Re: I need a brief of summary of everything the Catholic Church messed up on

Originally posted by johncmcleod
he actually believes something along the lines of that everything the Catholic Church says and does is infallible and that doctrinally it has never been wrong or changed its position on anything.

Infallibility is a charism of the Holy Spirit. Note that this is a negative charism. It gaurantees that the Church is without error when She solemnly defines matters of doctrine and morals.

It does not gaurantee that the particular expression of those doctrines be adequate, nor that they be the most appropriate expression of the doctrine.

Furthermore, the teaching authority granted to the Church by the grace of the Holy Spirit (which is a separate matter from infallibility) may not be used in a manner which is in any way coercive since this would counteract the grace of the Spirit.

Also note that Vatican II recognised that teachings must be interpreted according to the cultural and historical context in which they were originally given. So any fundamentalist interpretation of previously published doctrine is excluded. Sorry, I don't have a reference for that right now, but I can find something if you need it.

As far as your friend's attitude goes,..
I recommend that he reread the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25) and take a strong dose of humility.
He should probably also check his facts with his parish priest.