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.
I do appreciate your comments, they are well-written and informative as to your beliefs.
I wasn’t really trying to get into a discussion of whether this particular declaration was a “game-changer” in terms of the church, but it was still interesting to read your historical persepective.
It seems at a shallow glance that the bloodline can be asserted because the decisions are made by the head of the church. The head of the church is always presumed to have the keys, and therefore what he binds or looses defines the church’s position, and if it WAS a change from previous practice or dogma (not saying it ever was, just a hypothetical), since the power is granted to him to do so, the “true church” is the one that follows the changes as specified by the leader, not those who disagree with the leader and break off.
And so long as there is a belief that the leader of the church is devinely chosen, and therefore not subject to question as to the possession of the keys, you cannot have a true “schism” where two people claim leadership and each form their own church declaring themselves the rightful heirs to the bloodline.
From outside looking in, without that belief in the inerrancy of leadership choice, one can imagine a leader who would stray from God’s path, and imagine adherants to the faith who see the true way rebelling against the leadership, and thus establishing the “true church” again outside that leadership, maybe with the hopes of one day reconciling and bringing the apostate church under the “chosen” leadership back to the fold.
It is jarring to a non-Catholic to see early believers labelled “Catholic”. I suppose this is essential if claims to the bloodline are to be asserted, but the denotion of membership prior to the establishment of the entity seems self-serving. On the other hand, from within the Church, the claim I presume is that the Church as not established when the name was first claimed, but by God himself, with the “originating” councils merely confirming and codifying an existance that was already in practice.
Again, looking from the outside, such a claim seems self-serving, but I’m not up for a discussion of whether the claim is defensible or not — I imagine there are such discussions of course, it’s just something that would require far more work on my part than I feel would be worthwhile relative to the level of concern on my part for a definitive answer.
Again, thank you for your posts.