Catholic Doctrine Doesn't Change.

[the lumberjack]

so, Laud...this is a quote from one of our fellow phatmassers here...I'm sure he knows who he is.

the question is, if Catholic doctrine doesn't change, and the catholic church has always been the same:

why all the counsels?

why all the expanding and rephrasing and reappraisal of what the church believes?

why did the Pope ask for forgiveness of the things the Catholic church has done in the past?

seeing as we ARE the church of Christ, we should be living a life that would reflect Christ...from the Church leaders all the way down...

what about all the mass murders of Christians (not mention all the world's religions) at the hands of the Roman Catholic church?[url="http://www.khouse.org/articles/prophetic/19950701-79.html"]if you don't believe me, go here...[/url]

second...regarding the absolute never ending virginity of mary, well, IF they were his cousins... then what about this passage and its translation?

Matthew 13:55-56, where it mentions Christ's brothers and sisters.

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

I had brought this point up before, but no one posted anything...

.... and here's the 2 definitions in the lexicon entry...

thanks laud...peace.

[Jake Huether]

Well, I will only add to what LD is going to say. LOL.

If LD wishes, this post may be deleted.


[quote]
the question is, if Catholic doctrine doesn't change, and the catholic church has always been the same:

why all the counsels? [/quote]


Counsels don't change anything. They are meant to clarify (for others) what they intended to convey in the first place. Or expand on a doctrine. In other words, if their understanding has grown, they can fill in the gaps in their doctrine. What we have is the Truth. We don't yet have all Truth. But what we have so far is entirely True. The Truth is continually being revealed to us (ref. John 16:13).

Counsels also meet to discus disciplinse, such as our posture at Mass, etc.




[quote]why did the Pope ask for forgiveness of the things the Catholic church has done in the past?[/quote]

I don't believed the Pope ever said the Church was at fault for anything. He's apologised for the acts of individuals within the Church, because we are a sinfull bunch. But the Church has never errored in teaching.




[quote]what about all the mass murders of Christians (not mention all the world's religions) at the hands of the Roman Catholic church?if you don't believe me, go here...[/quote]


Um... The Church never commanded anyone to kill anyone. Individuals inside the Church have abused their power. But they wen't agains the teachings of their own faith.

[quote]second...regarding the absolute never ending virginity of mary, well, IF they were his cousins... then what about this passage and its translation?

Matthew 13:55-56, where it mentions Christ's brothers and sisters.

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?[/quote]


I recently bumped up a thread regarding this, where your question was beat to death several times over. I hope you'll take the time to read through it.


Now, okay, I'll step down and wait for LD.

God bless you.

Edited March 23, 2004 by Jake Huether

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 23 2004, 04:27 PM'] Yo. He asked only for L_D to reply. [/quote]
thank you.

and since i only asked him to reply, I'm not gonna bother reading or responding to anyone else's posts pertaining this topic.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 23 2004, 03:10 PM']so, Laud...this is a quote from one of our fellow phatmassers here...I'm sure he knows who he is.
[/quote]
lumberjack,

Wow, I feel like I'm on the hot seat.
I can only respond very briefly since your post put forward so many issues.

[quote]the question is, if Catholic doctrine doesn't change, and the catholic church has always been the same:[/quote]
Catholic doctrine does change in a certain sense. Namely that our understanding of that doctrine deepens and can become more clear etc.. This does not mean that the Church invents new doctrines. For example the Church presumably believed in the doctrine of the Trinity before it was actually formulated, or even before the word was used. It just became understood in a more systematic and formal way. This process has taken place throughout history. The role of the Church's magisterium is the safeguard and expound upon the deposit of faith. This includes the possibility of introducing new language and new ways of expressing the truths of the faith that meet the needs of a particular time period. But the doctrines are still essentially the same. And the Catholic Church has not always been the same in some strict sense, but it is the same in terms of a historical continuity and a doctrinal unity. But many things do vary between cultures and time periods. For example walking into a church in rural Africa may be quite different from a church in the suburbs of Chicago, but its the same faith, united through the hierarchy in union with the Pope, professing one Faith, etc.. Similarly if you could go back in time things would feel a lot different, the culture shock of being in medieval times or the early patristic era would be quite extreme, but the Mass would be the Mass, the creed would be the creed and the Bishops would be Bishops.
And of course an ancient Christian would not understand the faith with all the terminology and concepts that have developed over the centuries.

Keep in mind that there are definitive doctrines and dogmas that cannot change, and then there are speculative opinions, customs and disciplines which can change and do vary, which is normal and fine. For example the sign of the cross has different forms. The Eastern Churches do it slightly different and the earliest form of the sign of the Cross was simply to trace the sign of the cross on the forehead with your thumb. This calls to mind a verse in the OT which speaks of marking a tau on your forehead.

[quote]why all the counsels?[/quote]
Do you mean counsels as in advice or do you mean councils as in the ecumenical councils? If you meant the latter I would simply point out that most of the councils were called to combat heresy and things like that which shows the wisdom of God in establishing His Church with a true teaching authority. When the Bishops meet in an official capacity, in union with the Bishop of Rome who is the successor or St. Peter, they have the authority to teach definitively because the Holy Spirit protects the Church from falling into error.

[quote]why all the expanding and rephrasing and reappraisal of what the church believes?[/quote]
I've already discussed this to some extent. There are many reasons; historical circumstances, heresy, pastoral issues, etc.. The development of culture and society is quite fluid. It is remarkable that the deposit of faith has been handed on through 2,000 years when one considers the radical changes the world has undergone in those 2,000 years.

[quote]why did the Pope ask for forgiveness of the things the Catholic church has done in the past?[/quote]
You can read the Pope's own words on the matter here:
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1215"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1215[/url]

The main thing to remember is that the Pope was asking forgiveness for the sins of members of the Church, not for things the Catholic Church has done in the past. There is a difference. And since when are Catholics the only people to have sinned? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[quote]seeing as we ARE the church of Christ, we should be living a life that would reflect Christ...from the Church leaders all the way down...[/quote]
Yes. The Church has always taught this. We are all called to holiness and should keep the commandments and live lives worthy of that to which we have been called in Christ Jesus. Christ tells us to be perfect as the Father is perfect. Just because there have been sins among Christians down through the ages does not mean that Christianity isn't true. And do not forget that there have been countless holy men and women in every time period. Just scoop up the lives of the Saints if you don't believe me. And be assured that even this is just the tip of the iceberg.

[quote]what about all the mass murders of Christians (not mention all the world's religions) at the hands of the Roman Catholic church?[/quote]
I'm afraid this is a common tactic used by anti-catholics and it is overdone if you ask me. Things like the crusades and the inquisition are often grossly misrepresented. And the book that the article you gave refers to is one that I am aware of. It is a classic piece of anti-catholic literature and is guilty of this to the extreme. If you don't believe me [url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num25.htm"]click here.[/url]
There are many, many lies about the Church regarding these things. Check these out if you want to hear both sides:

[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Dossier/2002-02/article.html"]http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Do...02/article.html[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Dossier/2002-02/article3.html"]http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Do...2/article3.html[/url]
[url="http://members.tripod.com/~frjoe/inquisition.htm"]http://members.tripod.com/~frjoe/inquisition.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=695"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=695[/url]
[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0025.html"]http://catholiceducation.org/articles/hist...rld/wh0025.html[/url]
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ366.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ366.HTM[/url]
[url="http://members.tripod.com/~frjoe/inquisition.htm"]http://members.tripod.com/~frjoe/inquisition.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp[/url]

And the history of protestantism is full of massacres and atrocities, if you don't believe me click [url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM"]here[/url]and [url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num37.htm"]here[/url].

Also one most take into account the social and historical context when approaching these things. These are five basic points to take into consideration.
[quote]1. The Church is a society, perfect and sovereign, with legislative, judicial and executive powers, charged with the supreme task of disseminating in all its purity the body of divinely revealed religious truth.
2. Faith was considered by the people of the Middle Ages (and of today as well) as a gift of God, more precious than all the treasures of the earth. The faith had come down to them in its original integrity because their ancestors had suffered persecution and death rather than modify it or deny it. It was their duty to safeguard its purity so there would be no departure from the teachings of Christ and His Apostles; since it was the key that would open to them the gates of Heaven, no earthly treasure could compensate them for its loss; hence orthodoxy was to be maintained at all costs.
3. There existed a moral, spiritual and juridical unity of medieval society wherein Church and State constituted a closely knit polity. Theocratic in structure, the State could not be indifferent about the spiritual welfare of its subjects without being guilty of treason to its supreme Lord and Sovereign-- Almighty God. The spiritual authority was inseparably intertwined with the secular in much the same way as the soul is united with the body: the modern concept of these two authorities operating in separate water-tight compartments would have shocked the medieval mind much as a schizophrenic personality dismays the modern.
4. There was a severity of the penal code of those days, in which the use of torture and the stake was common. Counterfeiters were burnt alive; those who gave false weights and measures were scourged or condemned to death; burglars were led to the scaffold; thieves convicted of a relapse were put to death. The whole penal code bristled with vengeance for those who transgressed its laws; even as late as the reign of Henry VIII and of Elizabeth persons were being drawn, disemboweled and quartered; others were being boiled to death. Still more revolting was the torture of the wheel, on which the victim was left with broken bones and limbs to die a lingering death of excruciating pain. John Calvin experienced no scruples in having his theological opponent, Michael Servetus, burned to death. The penalties inflicted by the Inquisition were simply those in current use in their day.
5. The modern concept of the secular state, neutral toward all religions and guaranteeing to their adherents equal rights and freedom of conscience and of worship, would have shocked the medieval mind. Few people realize how comparatively recent is the development such as we have in the United States. To view the thought and action of the people of the Middle Ages against the background of today is to misunderstand and misjudge them entirely. It would be like viewing the covered wagon in which the early settlers in America trekked to the West against the background of the airplane travel of today. [/quote]

Also atheists often use historical mudslinging as a way of discrediting religion in general. But we must remember that often time when people did bad things in the name of religion they were in fact going against their religion and the issues were really more cultural and political. For example when protestants massacred Catholics or vice versa. Does the fact of protestants torturing and killing Catholics and doing extreme acts of brutality and cruelty mean that Christianity isn't true? I think it means that the people involved were not actually living what they claimed to believe. I'm trying to mud sling by any means. I just want to point out the fact that the personal sins of members of the Church do not invalidate the religion. If this was true we would all be in pretty big trouble. Consider a small, independent, bible-only church who's pastor is one day discovered to have an adulterous love- affair with a teenage girl (this kind of stuff happens) does this mean that all the members of that church are false-christians? Of course not, it means that guy wasn't practicing what he preaches.

[quote]second...regarding the absolute never ending virginity of mary,  well, IF they were his cousins... then what about this passage and its translation?

[quote]Matthew 13:55-56, where it mentions Christ's brothers and sisters.

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?[/quote]

I had brought this point up before, but no one posted anything... [/quote]
Actually lumberjack I answered this post on a different thread a while back. Here is my post from the other thread.

lumberjack,

Mt 13:55 = "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren [GK, adelphos: brethren, brothers, kinsmen, etc.] James and Joseph and Simon and Judas."
Mk 6:3 = "Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother [GK, adelphos: ] of James and Joses [Joseph] and Judas and Simon, and are no his sisters here with us?"

Notes:
1. Joses is a variant spelling of Joseph.
2. According to my Greek Lexicon (it's non-Catholic by the way) the word adelphos means brothers or kinsmen (brethren).
3. I've read protestant scholarship which admits that the Bible is not conclusive about Jesus actually have blood brothers and sisters (I'm too lazy to dig up quotes right now).
4. The ancient Christian understanding was that Mary had no other children. These were native Greek speakers who were much closer to Christ's lifetime who certainly would know better.

Other verses to consider:
Mt 27:56 = "Among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph [Joses] and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."
Mk 15:40 = "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses [Joseph], and Salome, who, when he was in Galilee, followed him and misistered to him."
Mk 15:47 = "Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses [Joseph] saw where he was laid."
Jn 20:25 = "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."

Conclusion:
It seems reasonable to infer that Mary the mother of Jesus had an adelphai also named Mary (which suggests she was probably not a full blood sister since people don't name two daughters the same thing, perhaps a cousin). So this close relative of Mary had sons named James and Joses [Joseph] and possible others (such as Salome, Judas and Simon) who would have been Christ's cousins or kinsmen (adelphos).

[quote].... and here's the 2 definitions in the lexicon entry...[/quote]
I would say that this lexicon is a bit lacking. I own lexicons which give more definitions and give more detail about the biblical usage of that term. In classical Greek the word adelphos pretty much means blood brothers and sisters. But in koine the meaning is broader. It's really no big secret that the people back then spoke of extended family in this way. Adelphos means brothers, brethren, fellow christians, etc.. It did not have the connotation of strictly brothers of the same mother. The same applies with sisters. The fact is this is readily admitted by protestant scholars and there is no conclusive proof that Mary had other children after Jesus. Many protestants believe this and try to make a case from the Bible but the fact is its simply not conclusive. And there is a case to be made for Mary's perpetual virginity from the Bible. For example many Christians down through the ages (Augustine, Chrysostom, Aquinas, Scotus, etc..) have seen in Mary's question to Gabriel in Lk 1:34 and indication of a vow of virginity. She says "how can this been for I know not man". There are different ways of translating it but in examining the Greek there is a clear connotation of not just a current virginal state but of a desire to remain a virgin. Also the fact that she even asked such a question would be almost absurd if she had intended to have normal marital relations with Joseph. There is much more to this but suffice it to say this is one of the positive indications of Mary's perpetual virginity in Scripture which even modern scholars with no sympathies toward Catholic doctrine have recognized.
So in the face of two possibilities, how does one know which is correct? I would point out that the early Christians, many of whom were native Greek speakers and thus had a deeper understanding of the Biblical text, and who were much more closely connected with the actual historical events and persons, believe unanimously in Mary's perpetual virginity. The denial of this is a abberation.
You would have to hold that the unanimous belief of the first Christians, and the reading of the Scripture by actual koine Greek speaking people was radically faulty. I think the perpetual virginity of Mary is quite secure.
And the verse you gave actual goes against the idea that Mary had other children because the Bible shows that these people were sons of someone else who was described as the "sister" of Mary, but could not be her actual sister but is more likely a cousing (contra the idea that brother/sister must be taken in the strict sense).


I hope this helps lumberjack. I will gladly discuss any other issues you may have although I haven't been going online as much these days so I might be slow.

God bless you.
Peace.

Edited March 24, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

This may be in bad taste, but I thought it might be interesting to frame a post similar to the one that began this thread, but from the opposite perspective. I'm not trying to attack protestantism (I hope it doesn't come off that way), I'm simply trying to give the opposing perspective to broaden the scope of this discussion. God bless.

Regarding protestantism:
[quote]why all the counsels? [/quote]
Why the lack of any authoritative teaching authority? No means of definitively settling doctrinal disputes? Why is protestantism fundamentally divided and sectarian? Why no unity? (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).

[quote]why all the expanding and rephrasing and reappraisal of what the church believes?[/quote]
Why the rampant doctrinal anarchy? Why the theological relativism and lack of doctrinal certainty among protestants? Why the subjectivism and individualism which goes against the model of Christian community presented in the Scriptures?
Why is protestantism so inconsistent with historical Christianity? Why is contemporary protestantism so inconsistent with the faith of the protestant reformers themselves? (these are honest questions, not attacks or smear tactics. Forgive my bluntness, but this is how I perceive the protestant world)


seeing as we ARE the church of Christ, we should be living a life that would reflect Christ...from the Church leaders all the way down...


When one reads the lives of the Saints one is utterly floored by the dazzling incarnation of the Gospel that is revealed in the lives of the Catholic Church's great heroic souls. [url="http://www.catholic.org/saints/stindex.php"]http://www.catholic.org/saints/stindex.php[/url]
These are those who reveal the fruits of Catholicism. When one truly lives the Catholic Faith they become a resplendent light to the world and a living icon of God's love and presence in the world. These are the true fruits of Catholicism. The vast treasury of writings and the incredible witness of those who have been faithful to Christ's words and have lived out the teachings of His Church in a heroic way.


what about all the mass murders of Christians (not mention all the world's religions) at the hands of the Protestant churches?if you don't believe me, go [url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM"]here[/url]... (I admit this is tacky, I don't mean to smear protestants, as I mentioned in my previous post I don't think this proves anything about protestantism. I'm just trying to show that this remark goes both ways)

Why do so many protestants deny the perpetual virginity of Mary when the protestants reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer) upheld it as an essential doctrine?
[quote][b]Martin Luther:[/b]
"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. "
(Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39)

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. "

"Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother."
(Sermon, Christmas, 1529)

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin."
(Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," December, 1527)

"She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil."
(Personal  {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522)[/quote]

Why did protestants stop honoring Mary and why did they start saying she did not remain a virgin? Do you suggest that Luther did not know the Bible? He translated it from the Greek and did not suggest that the "adelphos" of Jesus were other children of Mary. How do you know protestant beliefs are true when they have changed so much? And not just in a doctrinal development like Catholic teachings, a deeper understanding, etc.. but they have changed in ways that totally contradict.

Edited March 24, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[the lumberjack]

wow laud...thanks.

I'll respond shortly...

and believe me, as someone praying to be wise, I never think myself right. I have been raised in the Protestant church...and have been taught things one way.

and as I've said, I'll discuss and post and learn till I know one way or the other. if it takes me my whole life to find that the Catholic church is right...I'm sure the Lord won't mind.

I mean, after all....I'm DESIRING the truth...and have received the Lord as my Saviour...so I'm covered, right?

much love, laud.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[color=red]I'm leaving Jake's post but have deleted all the others. If anyone wishes to address Lumberjack's questions they can PM him, or if they think LD could add something to his replies they can PM him their input.

Your (mostly) friendly neighborhood moderator. [/color]

[Laudate_Dominum]

cool. take your time lumberjack. I don't mind.

Thanks for picking me to represent the Church on these matters. I'm not worthy, but its still an honor.

God bless you brother.

peace.

[Laudate_Dominum]

bump!

[Laudate_Dominum]

lumberjack,

I haven't seen you around lately, but I figured I'd bump this thread again in case you wanted to discuss any other issues one on one.

God bless you, I hope you are doing well.

[Laudate_Dominum]

BUMP!

If you're out there, you are greatly missed lumberjack.

God bless.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Just happened upon this thread and I'm like, where is the lumberjack??

[phatcatholic]

too bad we'll never get to read his response.......

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Sep 4 2005, 05:35 AM']too bad we'll never get to read his response.......
[right][snapback]710462[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What happened to him? Do you know?

[LittleLes]

QUOTE
what about all the mass murders of Christians (not mention all the world's religions) at the hands of the Roman Catholic church?if you don't believe me, go here...


Um... The Church never commanded anyone to kill anyone. Individuals inside the Church have abused their power. But they wen't agains the teachings of their own faith.


RESPONSE:

I always like this stock answer. :

Whatever evil the Church may have done, it really wasn't the Church that was in error. It was only a few of her errant sons, ie, popes, councils, etc. So the Church wasn't really responsible for the slaughter of the Albigensians, the Inquistion, the Crusades, etc.etc.

A recent example:

"Archbishop Christodoulos then referred to religious differences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, some of which date back more than 1,000 years. The Pope replied, "For the occasions past and present, when sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us forgiveness."

Always the Church's "sons and daughters." Even today using the same line. Never the Church. What's wrong with that explanation?