Catholicism: "Our Teachings have never changed" claim

[vorlon13]

The church has turned a blind eye towards child molesting priests for over 1500 years.

So that isn't go to change either.

[Cyberman]

Not sure if this counts, but what springs to mind is the whole evolution thiing. Old Karol the Pole rather famously proclaimed it as true but I don't know what Palpatine and this new one think about it. Anything there for you?

[ThomM]

Hi guys

So..Yeah, I'm new here, and I was hoping one of you might know something that could help me out. I've been looking around but eh...90% of Theology/Church history sites are biased between one group of biblethumpers or another trying to paint the other as silly/moronic/satanic/whatever. I'm looking for an outside opinion.

Much as it might amuse some of you I'm actually an RE student and I've been pulled into a debate with a Catholic. Now, I've got a pretty good handle on what Catholics think about the world but I'm no expert on Catholic Church history. One of the things this guy is insisting upon is that the Catholic Church has at no point ever changed one of its teachings, doctrines or Dogmas, same today as it was a thousand years ago.

I've mentioned a few things across history that I know of like the sin of Ursury being abolished/"reinterpreted" (lending money with interest), the heretic popes Virgilius and Honorius, the idea that all non-Catholics are going to hell (rethought during vatican II) and the idea of Limbo vanishing but he's having none of it; these aren't infallible teachings and don't count.

I honestly thought some of Virgilius's statements could be counted as infalliable but either way...Do any of you guys know anything I could reference or refer to? Any tips are appreciated.

Vox

Actuallly - the most basic of the teachings of the xtian church has NEVER changed

Give us MONEY - the more the better - no matter what YOUR circumstances are

That they promise NOTHING in return - because nothing is certain - means that the church remains that Protection Racket they have always been - create a problem (a need to be saved) and PREY on the stupid - uneducated -and sick people who are the basis for the money

[Thumpalumpacus]

Much as it might amuse some of you I'm actually an RE student and I've been pulled into a debate with a Catholic. Now, I've got a pretty good handle on what Catholics think about the world but I'm no expert on Catholic Church history. One of the things this guy is insisting upon is that the Catholic Church has at no point ever changed one of its teachings, doctrines or Dogmas, same today as it was a thousand years ago.

Priestly celibacy.

[Vox]

So why did the dickheads pardon Galileo in 1992?

There is little in life more full of shit than a catholic.

Eh..This is where the doublespeak comes in.

They admitted Galileo was right, and they apologized for the worse part of the treatment he suffered.

They've never apologized for actually prosecuting Galileo, since their actions "for the time" were correct in the light of things. I know, I know...But if they admit they're wrong, they're admitting they can screw up on matters of faith. That's not gonna happen, same way some of them argue that Pedopriests aren't pedophiles because that 15 year old was older and really wanted the D.

Not sure if this counts, but what springs to mind is the whole evolution thiing. Old Karol the Pole rather famously proclaimed it as true but I don't know what Palpatine and this new one think about it. Anything there for you?

Thanks, I did chase this one up. Apparently the CC has never ruled infalliably on that; from the 1800's they said they don't know how life evolved, and it may not have been in several literal days. Even today they say evolution seems likely, but they don't rule either way. The only thing they insist upon is that Adam and Eve were a literal couple, but they may have evolved from older soulless primates.

That surprisingly it actually pretty consistent, doesn't seem to be much on it prior to the 1700's.

Priestly celibacy.

Apparently they might be changing that later this year, there's a synod of bishops meeting to talk about "discipline" changes, primarily remarried divorcees receiving communion (Getting a divorce and then remarried makes you an adulterer in their eyes) but priestly celibacy is apparently also up for discussion.

There have always been married Catholic priests in the East, but in the west celibacy has been upheld as some sort of vetting process for the truley devoted. There's nothing to say there can't be married priests, it's just a tradition they admit they might change any time they feel like it, not a teaching, just an "extra".

[CapnAwesome]

Hi guys

So..Yeah, I'm new here, and I was hoping one of you might know something that could help me out. I've been looking around but eh...90% of Theology/Church history sites are biased between one group of biblethumpers or another trying to paint the other as silly/moronic/satanic/whatever. I'm looking for an outside opinion.

Much as it might amuse some of you I'm actually an RE student and I've been pulled into a debate with a Catholic. Now, I've got a pretty good handle on what Catholics think about the world but I'm no expert on Catholic Church history. One of the things this guy is insisting upon is that the Catholic Church has at no point ever changed one of its teachings, doctrines or Dogmas, same today as it was a thousand years ago.

I've mentioned a few things across history that I know of like the sin of Ursury being abolished/"reinterpreted" (lending money with interest), the heretic popes Virgilius and Honorius, the idea that all non-Catholics are going to hell (rethought during vatican II) and the idea of Limbo vanishing but he's having none of it; these aren't infallible teachings and don't count.

I honestly thought some of Virgilius's statements could be counted as infalliable but either way...Do any of you guys know anything I could reference or refer to? Any tips are appreciated.

Vox

That's a crazy claim that he's made. I was raised Catholic and the Catholic Church openly has changed their positions. It's not like it's some sort of secret or anything.

Vatican I: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council
Vatican II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council
The council of Trent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent

A very obvious change in Catholic theology that came out of Vatican II is the ability of non-Catholics to go to heaven. However lots of other doctrines came out of the others as well, including papal infallibility and the divinity of Mary. Basically your debate opponent doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't know why someone would even make such a claim, as the Pope himself acknowledges and even makes doctrinal changes, such as post Vatican II when John Paul II said that Jews could enter Heaven, which certainly wasn't Catholic policy in the middle ages. I don't know where he would get that claim from.

[Minimalist]

Like all religious claims...he made it up.

[ThomM]

So why did the dickheads pardon Galileo in 1992?

There is little in life more full of shit than a catholic.

Eh..This is where the doublespeak comes in.

They admitted Galileo was right, and they apologized for the worse part of the treatment he suffered.

They've never apologized for actually prosecuting Galileo, since their actions "for the time" were correct in the light of things. I know, I know...But if they admit they're wrong, they're admitting they can screw up on matters of faith. That's not gonna happen, same way some of them argue that Pedopriests aren't pedophiles because that 15 year old was older and really wanted the D.

Not sure if this counts, but what springs to mind is the whole evolution thiing. Old Karol the Pole rather famously proclaimed it as true but I don't know what Palpatine and this new one think about it. Anything there for you?

Thanks, I did chase this one up. Apparently the CC has never ruled infalliably on that; from the 1800's they said they don't know how life evolved, and it may not have been in several literal days. Even today they say evolution seems likely, but they don't rule either way. The only thing they insist upon is that Adam and Eve were a literal couple, but they may have evolved from older soulless primates.

That surprisingly it actually pretty consistent, doesn't seem to be much on it prior to the 1700's.

Priestly celibacy.

Apparently they might be changing that later this year, there's a synod of bishops meeting to talk about "discipline" changes, primarily remarried divorcees receiving communion (Getting a divorce and then remarried makes you an adulterer in their eyes) but priestly celibacy is apparently also up for discussion.

There have always been married Catholic priests in the East, but in the west celibacy has been upheld as some sort of vetting process for the truley devoted. There's nothing to say there can't be married priests, it's just a tradition they admit they might change any time they feel like it, not a teaching, just an "extra".

Actually - the sects of Xtianity that represent over 75% of the xtians of the world have already accepted that evolution took place - and Catholicism has already admitted that the bible is not "literally" true - but more of a way to explain things to children and (stupid) uneducated people.

And of course - there were married priests for hundreds of years - and priestly celibacy was an economic situation - not a matter of faith.

[The Grand Nudger]

A very obvious change in Catholic theology that came out of Vatican II is the ability of non-Catholics to go to heaven.

Hahaha, take that theists, I'm going to heaven! Checkmate!

[Jackalope]

A very obvious change in Catholic theology that came out of Vatican II is the ability of non-Catholics to go to heaven.

Hahaha, take that theists, I'm going to heaven! Checkmate!

Bit of a dubious victory, dontchathink?