Replies

Your post raises a technical question that i want to ask, as a way of understanding how a church claims a path back to the original church. I don’t mean this to be confrontational, as I’m not trying to make a point about doctrine with this question, just about process.

Presuming that the Pope defined Imacculate Conception in 1850s (I say that because I have no certain knowledge of that, so I’m jsut accepting it as a premise — really my question would work with a hypothetical as well). Suppose a significant part of the Church had decided at that time to reject that teaching, and had made their own church but otherwise held to every tenet of the Catholic faith and tradition.

Now, it’s 200 years later, and you have these two churches. Which one gets to claim they go back to the original church? The one with the name “Catholic” and the Pope, which now preaches the Immaculate Conception? Or the one which is exactly the same except that they don’t accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which means they still practice the faith just as it was for 1822 years after the foundation of the church?

I would argue that the 2nd church as a better claim to the bloodline.

Which would mean the argument over which church is the “original church”, to the degree such an argument has any value, would not be based on the name, but would require close examination of the changes in doctrine and dogma over the years, to determine which church most closely held to the same doctrine and dogma as the original church.

We see that happening in the Episcopalian church — which ones have claim to the origins, the one with the name but who accept gay priests, or the ones who are splitting off to remain true to the previous doctrine?

In my opinion, no church seems to have a pure bloodline of doctrinal teaching that mirrors the original church — but that is an opinion based partly out of ignorance of the details of doctrine of every church in the world.

But in what way does a church which has changed it’s doctrine, sometimes significantly, many times, claim exclusive rights to the bloodline?

May I respond?

But in what way does a church which has changed it's doctrine, sometimes significantly, many times, claim exclusive rights to the bloodline?

There are a couple of different questions here. Let me deal with the easier one first.

"Claim exclusive rights to the bloodline". I'm not at all convinced that we do that. Certainly, any church which has valid episcopal orders (e.g., the Orthodox) is also part of the "bloodline".

But Jesus did more than just establish a bloodline. He founded a visible church to teach in his name, and willed that it persist on earth, guided by the Holy Spirit, until the end of time. That church is his bride, and (sorry, Salt Lake City) he is not a polygamist: there's only one bride.

Changes in doctrine. There are two kinds of changes, contradiction on the one hand, or organic development on the other. There's very little evidence that the Catholic Church has ever contradicted her doctrine (taught "not X" infallibly, then later taught "X"). The best example is on the issue of usury, but even that one is debatable.

The definition of the IC was not a contradiction, but a development. If we know that "A" is true and "B" is true, and we know that "A and B implies C" is true, then that means that C is true. Whether we knew that yesterday, and didn't say it out loud, or didn't know it consciously yesterday, but know it now ... that's not a contradiction, but a development in understanding.

Our Lord promised the church, through his disciples, that she would be "led to all truth". That leading is a process, not a punctiliar event.

You can make the same argument that you made wrt the IC with respect to Nicaea. Wouldn't an Arian say, "Look, the church changed her doctrine at Nicaea -- we didn't have any creed demanding belief in the divinity of Christ before it. So therefore, we are closer to the original church"?

In the early centuries of the Catholic Church there arose a great controversy over the question: Is Mary merely the mother of the human nature of Jesus or is she, as His mother, also Mother of God? When this question was decided in favor of Mother of God, it is true (in a sense) that this was a change in the body of dogma but by addition and not by substitution. Previous to the defining of the dogma, one might, as a Catholic, believe she was Mother of God (as very many did) or not. After the dogma was defined, it was to be believed. More properly, this is the development of doctrine rather than change.

St. Thomas Aquinas held the opinion that a male unborn child became a living human being earlier than a female unborn child. Today, the Church's doctrine is that human life begins for both sexes at the moment of conception. If St. Thomas Aquinas were able to visit Pope Benedict XVI today and be informed thus authoritatively that human life (for either sex) begins at conception, he would likely slap his forehead and say: "Why didn't I realize that???"

One who would reject new definitive teaching would NOT be better tied to what had gone before because Jesus Christ Himself gave to Peter, the first pope, the keys of His Kingdom, and with the power to bind and loose.

Way back in 55 AD (or so) St. Paul brought to St. Peter (first pope) the question of whether one must be a Jew to be a Christian (requiring men who converted to be circumcised as adults) or not. Peter had personally been of the opinion that one must be a Jew but he allowed himself to be persuaded by Paul's arguments and (at what we now call the Council of Jerusalem) ruled that gentiles could become Catholic without circumcision or preliminary entry into Judaism. In their day and in Jerusalem, this was a more earth-shaking decision than we likely imagine today. Nonetheless, Peter can hardly be said to have invalidated the path back to Christ and Pentecost by his good faith exercise of the power of the keys. Before his decision, either position was acceptable. After his decision, his decision was to be believed and accepted.

Interestingly, the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra (from the throne) on matters of faith and morals was defined by the First Vatican Council during the reign of Pope Pius IX. It is an extraordinary power associated with the keys. It has been exercised only three times since it was defined. Pope Pius IX exercised it twice in the 1850s: Declaring the Immaculate Conception (long held by substantial numbers of Catholics over many centuries) and declaring the similar infallibility of doctrinal councils (but only when acting in concert with the pope and all invoking that infallibility specifically). To date, no council has invoked infallibility or acquired papal approval for same. The other exercise of infallibility was by Pope Pius XII in 1954 in which he declared that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven at the end of her stay on earth. This was another belief long held by Catholics over many centuries.

In a circumstance such as you describe, the 2nd Church which rejects the newly defined dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 1850s is not at all clearly the original Church (ignoring altogether the requirement of any Catholic at any stage giving due deference to papal authority which requirement is breached by refusing obedience to papal authority). The Church before the definition allowed the faithful to believe or disbelieve in the Immaculate Conception. The 1st Church headed up by the pope defines the dogma and expects that Catholics will honor the decision of the pope on the matter, thereby upsetting some who refuse to believe. If they clam to be Catholic, they cannot reject the papal authority conferred by Christ. Those who reject it and form the 2nd Church are thus transgressing against far more than the newly defined dogma. They are rejecting papal authority itself.

It is late. I must retire for the evening. Please consider what I have posted so far, respond and I shall do likewise. I am going to try to keep this conversation between thee and me because of my desire not to posture as having a Catholic expertise that I lack and my desire to cooperate in the public square with my fellow Freepers of whatever religious persuasion or none at all. I confess that I used to be one of the worst offenders in wars of the reformation and counterreformation around here and I am trying to do better.