Can the Pope change Catholic Church doctrine?
Poll
 | 6 votes (21.42%) | ||
| | 7 votes (25%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 2 votes (7.14%) | ||
| | 7 votes (25%) | ||
| | 6 votes (21.42%) |
28 members have voted
I do want to make clear though that while the pope can change doctrine and Vatican I layed out how this power is not without limits. The pope simply cannot change the doctrine of the physical resurrection of Jesus since this is seen as a matter of biblical truth and the infallibility only extend to things that do not contradict the bible which is seen as a more ultimate source of truth. I am wafting on whether I think a pope can overturn an ex catharda statement of a former pope. Like can Francis deny the immaculate conception of Mary, and yes I know he would have no reason to this is a thought excercise, technically they both occupy the same level of primacy so hard to say what would happen.
Quote: FrGambleI am indeed the lowest guy on the totem pole, which is why I'm just a little flabbergasted anyone would think I would disagree with the Pope?
The interesting thing is that I think Twirdman danced around the nuance he was looking for a couple of times. In the Catholic understanding the Pope, even when speaxing ex cathedra, is not creating or changing doctrine. Even the good quote you mentioned many times makes it clear that the Pope can infalliably only DEFINE doctrine or clarify teaching on faith and morals. You've alluded that you might not believe this, but I think you will admit that your beliefs are irrelevant to what the Church officially teaches (even though it would be great to have you practicing your faith again). The Church sees itself as the servant to Divine Revelation and can only develop, define, and clarify what she has been given through the Deposit of Faith. This deposit of faith includes the Bible and Sacred Tradition.
So take for example the Immaculate Conception. The Pope declares that officially the dogma of the Church, but it did not come out of the blue. Christians had believed that from the begining, this is the Sacred Tradition. Even though it is not explicit in the Bible it is not contray to Biblical teaching. You are wrong only if you think the Pope woke up one day and said, "Aha, I think I will proclaim the Immaculate Conception today."
The best document to read on this issue is Dei Verbum from Vatican II. It is a quick read and I think you would like it and it would clarify a lot of what I'm trying to say. I hope this helps but I fear you guys are locked in a death spiral that no one, not even the Pope can pull you out of.
Awesome post, and I think it needs to be here in this thread for Twird.
Great line, and I agree! :)Quote: FrGambleI hope this helps but I fear you guys are locked in a death spiral that no one, not even the Pope can pull you out of.
Thanks for posting, FrGamble.
Quote: FrGambleIn the way the question is phrased and I think commonly understood I can tell you without a doubt from the Catholic perspective the only correct answer is no.
+1000
Quote: FrGambleIn the way the question is phrased and I think commonly understood I can tell you without a doubt from the Catholic perspective the only correct answer is no.
Ok finally read your clarification and its exactly what I expected it to be and I completely agree I would never imply that the Catholics believe a pope can just make up doctrine. The popes job is to illuminate doctrine and according to the church doctrine is something that exist outside of the church. The pope can no more change it then the pope could make the sun revolve around the earth.
I hope you can see where I'm coming from though. The immaculate conception was illuminated as doctrine in the 1950s I think, I admit might be wrong on the date keep confusing which one came first immaculate conception or assumption. To a catholic especially members of the cloth they understand the pope didn't create doctrine instead he was revealed something that was always true and always a matter of doctrine namely the birth without original sin of the virgin Mary. I hope you see where I'm coming from though as an outsider of the church, if I don't believe doctrine exist as something outside the church then this appears to be the pope changing doctrine. Also a simple way of explaining this would be to say that the pope made the Immaculate Conception part of doctrine even though the answer is far more complex.
Quote: Beethoven9thKeep backtracking, Twird. ;)
I said specifically before that Fr probably had a far more nuanced opinion then presented and I was disagreeing with him from the point of a non believer. You seem to think the world is a black or white its not. Nuance permeates the air.
Quote: TwirdmanNuance permeates the air.
FrGamble answered "No" to the poll question. That's pretty straightforward to me.
Yet you're still going on & on about how you were "really" right in some regard. SMH
Quote: Beethoven9thHe answered "No" to the poll question. That's pretty straightforward to me.
Yet you're still going on & on about how you were "really" right in some regard. SMH
You're ignorant about this topic. You really are. Again this issue is far more complicated then you are making it out to be. You act as though saying church doctrine can't be changed is the same as saying human understanding of church doctrine can't change.
Quote: TwirdmanYou're ignorant about this topic.
He agreed with me, yet I'm ignorant? OK, whatever...
Quote: TwirdmanOk finally read your clarification and its exactly what I expected it to be and I completely agree I would never imply that the Catholics believe a pope can just make up doctrine. The popes job is to illuminate doctrine and according to the church doctrine is something that exist outside of the church. The pope can no more change it then the pope could make the sun revolve around the earth.
This is an awesome paragraph and I couldn't have said it better myself.
And yes I completely understand where you are coming from. It does look like to many people declarations like the Immaculate Conception are created by the Pope out of thin air. However, the Pope and the Church only serve the gift of God's Divine Revelation and can neither add or take away anything from what she is given. Thanks for understanding so well. Peace!
All that...just to avoid admitting that you were wrong on the poll question? Embarrassing. SMH
Quote: Beethoven9th^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All that...just to avoid admitting you were wrong on the poll question? Embarrassing. SMH
If you follow Beethoven general liberal debating rules by example, you don't lose, and if you do, you don't have to say you're wrong,
So, all is well.
Live by the sword, die by the sword, that's your problem.
Someone's getting angry again. ;)
Quote: Beethoven9th^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All that...just to avoid admitting you were wrong on the poll question? Embarrassing. SMH
What are you talking about you realize I'm an atheist right. I don't believe in an infallible source of doctrine so when doctrine is "learned through revelation" I count that as changing doctrine. It is only not changing doctrine if I believed there was an ultimate source of doctrine which I reject along with rejecting the existence of God. You realize the world is not black and white. I said if I believed in God I would believe in an ultimate source of doctrine and obviously no pope can change it since its Gods word.
Put simply Fr argues (if god exist then an unchanging doctrine exist god exist therefore unchanging doctrine exist) I accept the validity of this argument and I accept the first premise so if I accept the second premise then it becomes a valid argument with true premises so is true. I mean a sound argument is true. However in reality I reject the second premise so am not forced to accept the conclusion. So that means unchanging doctrine does not necessarily exist as such when a pope is revealed doctrine I think he is simply making up doctrine. Really there is no other choice I have since I don't believe in God.
Quote: TwirdmanWhat are you talking about you realize I'm an atheist right.
Who cares what you are? You answered No to the poll question, and you were WRONG. Now your excuse is, "Well, I define 'changing doctrine' differently than Catholic do!"
Lame. Really lame. And embarrassing.
Quote: Beethoven9thWho cares what you are? You answered No to the poll question, and you were WRONG. Now your excuse is, "Well, I define 'changing doctrine' differently than Catholic do!"
Lame. Really lame. And embarrassing.
No just no. You really lack understanding of complexity. Again you are incredibly ignorant of the nuance of this topic.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou answered No to the question. You were WRONG. No nuance there, bud.
You're right I forgot people like you can't appreciate the nuances and the world must be black and white to you. Do love how you stopped quoting Fr after he sees exactly where I'm coming from.
I will repeat: You answered No to the poll question. You were WRONG. No 'nuance' about that at all.
Anyway, of course the official answer is "no," but as far as I can tell, there's a funny little asterisk attached to that "no" that "doctrine is whatever lets us say 'no' to this question." I have yet to see anyone even attempt to, shall we say, catholically differentiate between doctrine and ephemera. Again, there are a lot of bearded men with nice hats who I guarantee would have a different answer to whatever FrGamble et al. could come up with.
Quote: 24BingoAgain, there are a lot of bearded men with nice hats who I guarantee would have a different answer to whatever FrGamble et al. could come up with.
oh boy, now we're back talking about that Duck Dynasty guy again.
Quote: 24BingoHmm? The posts weren't moved?
Anyway, of course the official answer is "no," but as far as I can tell, there's a funny little asterisk attached to that "no" that "doctrine is whatever lets us say 'no' to this question." I have yet to see anyone even attempt to, shall we say, catholically differentiate between doctrine and ephemera. Again, there are a lot of bearded men with nice hats who I guarantee would have a different answer to whatever FrGamble et al. could come up with.
Yeah problem was they were too jumbled and post would fit in multiple topics. But your post reminds me of my epistemology class. Such and such are knowable and you can know many things but for most things you can't know you know.
Also can completely answering this one but how do you like the new pope.
Quote: FrGambleoh boy, now we're back talking about that Duck Dynasty guy again.
Heh. That's not who I meant and you know it.
Quote: 24BingoHeh. That's not who I meant and you know it.
Though was hilarious response.
Quote: FrGambleTwirdman not to spin out into yet another thread from this conversation but I wonder why you believe there is no objective truth out there? I agree that your logic is sound. If there is no God then it stands to reason there is no objective truth and anything we say is true, wrong, good, evil, doctrine, or teaching is really just our own interpretation and we are making it up. This seems to be a difficult position to hold. Isn't there moral truths that go beyond the value we place on them, which would be true whether or not we agreed with them or followed them. Can you imagine a world in which it would be a good and moral thing to kill an innocent person? It seems to me that without God society loses its foundation and slips into subjective morality and eventually chaos.
I do believe in objective truths and there are even some objective truths I believe we are capable of knowing we know. I simply do not believe that much of church doctrine falls under this category. For instance the assumption of Mary it would be impossible for me to believe this as an objective truth. While I do believe Mary and Jesus were people who existed since I don't believe in Heaven it would be impossible for me to believe that Mary was bodily taken into heaven. Since I do not even believe that it is true I can't believe it as an objective truth outside the church.
Again don't want to get to side tracked but philosophically I am a rationalist so I actually say we know very little so I will say I cannot say I know what I"m saying to be true. I do believe in objective morals though. Specifically I believe in utilitarian philosophy and think an objective truth is we should maximise utility which I believe has a few different components happiness, equality, and a few other things. This leads to some moral situations that I'm sure we could all agree are right. Though some decisions would be more complex to make but I do believe the right moral decision does exist in all circumstances even if it is difficulty or even impossible to know it.
There are also plenty of other ethical systems that do not posit a God and still lead to objective moral truths. For instance Kantian philosophy does not necessarily need a God to work. Confucius also argued for a moral system that does not necessarily invoke God in his Classic on Filial Piety. The only moral philosophy which would arguably need a God is a pure rule based philosophy since it would be hard to justify all the rules all the time without invoke a source for those rules. Though even this is shaky as rules utilitarianism does not invoke God, though ends up breaking doesn to the point where you have as many rules as situations and end up with standard utilitarianism. So just because one rejects the truth of God does not mean they have to reject objective morals. For instance 2+2=4 is an objective truth, and in fact a necessary truth, one shouldn't say that that truth can only exist because of God. Some moral precepts occupy this same place of objective truth. They don't need a god to be true they simply are true.
Quote: treetopbuddyTo paraphrase Ayn Rand........rational men are basically good when acting in their own self interest.
This is a really weak ethical precept and has been shown to be false. Heck the prisoners dilemma shows the best example of this it is in both prisoners best interest to talk since regardless of what the other guy does they are better off, but both prisoners would be better off if they stayed quite. There is also the tragedy of the commons which provides an example where individuals acting rationally in the own self interest not only make things worse for themselves but eventually by depleting resources makes things worse for everyone.
Also some people are monsters whose own self interest hurts other people. A serial killer acts in his own self interest when murdering people. So if the only good is from people acting in their own self interest how can we condemn the serial killer. Or say someone with significant wealth manipulated the market enough to cause a massive crash to get more rich. He again is acting in his own self interest and quite well I may add and you would say he is basically good even though he ruined the lives of millions.
One could argue that that is an ok way to live a personal life, I disagree but that's not what's important, what is obvious though is it leads to an unworkable system of ethics.
Quote: FrGambleThere is no doubt that the same rules keep coming up for us as human beings regardless of our culture or time such as do not steal, cheat, kill, lie, etc. However to call these rules or laws true or good you need a foundation stronger than utility or chance. I don't see how one can claim to believe in objective truths or objective moral laws that are true or good for everyone and at everytime without positing a being who is the very definition of truth and goodness and who exists outside of time and place, aka God. Without God it seems to me that in every case, including Kant, you end up with tastes rather than truths.
I've never liked the whole notion of Anselm that to gave good or truth you have to have an ultimate source of good or truth. I mean look at mathematical or logical facts it is objectively true that 2+2=4 and it is objectively true that A or Not A is true. I do not believe these truths need any external sources they are simply properties of how logic and mathematics work. Similarly I believe that certain moral truths simply are axiomatically true. The statement that a proper moral choice is one that maximises utility is no more in need of a source to make it true then the statement dogs are Canis lupus familiaris. It is simply true that those two are tautologically equivalent. Now I will admit I cannot prove or know that this is truth but neither can you prove that you have a God that provides objective morality to you.
Quote: FrGambleThere is no doubt that the same rules keep coming up for us as human beings regardless of our culture or time such as do not steal, cheat, kill, lie, etc. However to call these rules or laws true or good you need a foundation stronger than utility or chance. .
I imagine there has always been some character around saying the equivalent of, "Oh yeah, who says so?" or "On whose authority?"
So, someone came up with something more definitive who can't be questioned? (well can be questioned, much as the wind can be questioned, but it's rather trying and difficult) And that's why I'm not a priest.
Quote: rxwineAnd that's why I'm not a priest.
I bet Catholics everywhere are very sad about that.
Quote: FrGamble...but I wonder why you believe there is no objective truth out there? I agree that your logic is sound. If there is no God then it stands to reason there is no objective truth and anything we say is true, wrong, good, evil, doctrine, or teaching is really just our own interpretation and we are making it up. This seems to be a difficult position to hold. Isn't there moral truths that go beyond the value we place on them, which would be true whether or not we agreed with them or followed them. Can you imagine a world in which it would be a good and moral thing to kill an innocent person? It seems to me that without God society loses its foundation and slips into subjective morality and eventually chaos.
What is so complicated about caring for your fellow man as well? Even some animals understand this concept, that if we stick together we all come out better than if we each look after ourselves and immediate family only. If one member steps out of line then he is ostracized, or worse.
By playing this card, father, you make it sound like believers are morally weak people who need a god to scare them into being good.
Quote: WizardWhat is so complicated about not caring for your fellow man as well? Even some animals understand this concept, that if we stick together we all come out better than if we each look after ourselves and immediate family only. If one member steps out of line then he is ostracized, or worse.
Careful, some here might incorrectly label you a socialist.
Quote: steeldcoCareful, some here might incorrectly label you a socialist.
I'm not sure it would be entirely incorrect, depending on how you define socialist.
Quote: WizardWhat is so complicated about not caring for your fellow man as well? Even some animals understand this concept, that if we stick together we all come out better than if we each look after ourselves and immediate family only. If one member steps out of line then he is ostracized, or worse.
By playing this card, father, you make it sound like believers are morally weak people who need a god to scare them into being good.
I was thinking that but didn't want to actually say it lest I offend people. But yeah morality based purely on the will of a divine being is terrifying. I mean you figure if God tells you to burn down an orphanage, and don't say he won't there are cases of genocide in the bible and even if there wasn't this is a thought exercise, what would you do. If you wouldn't do it then you admit there is a source of morality distinct from God. If you would do it you're a monster.
Quote: WizardI'm not sure it would be entirely incorrect, depending on how you define socialist.
Sadly to some of the right wingers just means anyone they disagree with. But seriously I don't see how helping other people ended up becoming a bad thing. Preventing people from starving why would you want to do that.
Quote: Beethoven9thI bet Catholics everywhere are very sad about that.
If that ain't trolling, i don't know what is. The same is true about Twird's asexuality. In the context of this argument or anything else on this site, what does that matter? It's attempting to assininate character by bringing in one's character flaw (if that's what that is, because it isn't) and taking the argument to an unnecessary tangent.
So from now on, i am going to imagine that Beethoven's 9th [edited] refers to comments that I would hear from a 9 year old child [end edit], because that's how intelligent your remarks [edited] seem to me [end edit] most of the time. The only personal information I know about you is that you live in and about Las Vegas. We don't know your marital status or age. So, inotherwords, you are the perfect internet troll.
So, continue your *facepalms*, [edit]9 [end edit].
Quote: WizardI'm not sure it would be entirely incorrect, depending on how you define socialist.
I think I am in a similar bind. I would argue for free will, personal ethos, integrity, and responsibility, over a religious view of believers as sheep requiring a shepherd's crook to pull them back into the flock (extrapolating from Fr. Gamble's comments). That way lies fascism, blind and dumb obedience, value manipulation, ostrasicm of the outlier (and who draws that line?), bullying, genocide. I think it is legitimate to be fully aware of doctrine, live by much of its tenets, and yet take responsibility for your own actions rather than committing them and then asking for forgiveness when you knew you were crapping on your fellow man in the first place. If following the Golden Rule and being self-aware makes me a socialist, paste the label right "here". If living by Christ's teachings while rejecting His follower's twisted distortions in the modern world makes me non-Christian, then label me agnostic, because organized religion in this country is an abomination. I do think there's a higher power of some sort, so "atheist" would be incorrect. Or better yet, get over needing to label people; labels are inherently divisive.
Not that anyone asked me in particular, but I felt like weighing in.
Quote: FrGamble...but I wonder why you believe there is no objective truth out there? I agree that your logic is sound. If there is no God then it stands to reason there is no objective truth and anything we say is true, wrong, good, evil, doctrine, or teaching is really just our own interpretation and we are making it up. This seems to be a difficult position to hold. Isn't there moral truths that go beyond the value we place on them, which would be true whether or not we agreed with them or followed them. Can you imagine a world in which it would be a good and moral thing to kill an innocent person? It seems to me that without God society loses its foundation and slips into subjective morality and eventually chaos.
There are plenty of times in history where killing an "innocent person" was the good thing to do. I believe that you can certainly build a moral framework without the presence of a Christian God, or any god or deity for that matter.
Imagine for a moment that there was absolute proof that there was no life after death (some will argue that the fact that there is no physical activity in the body is proof enough) and no heaven, or that physicists solve the creation of our universe question with a unarguable proof that can also prove that God does not exist.
Society would have to build a construct of what is good and what is not good (evil) and devise a set of laws according to morals and ethics based on societal needs. And we already see a world where the lines between good and evil shift all of the time. Abortion is a good example. Life indeed begins at conception, but we somehow give women the choice to murder that life for any reason before the pregnancy crosses an imaginary line (which moves from country to country and state to state). Crime and punishment are examples as well where laws and penalties are shifted to draw the line between "good" and "evil".
Quote: boymimboSo from now on, i am going to imagine that Beethoven's 9th refers to a 9 year old child, because that's how intelligent your remarks are most of the time.
Official warning that you're nearing the "personal insult" line. I would normally issue a suspension without the warning, but I know B9 can dish it out too. Anyway, consider yourself warned.
Quote: boymimboIf that ain't trolling, i don't know what is.
Just wanted to point these out to you:
Post 1, Post 2, Post 3, Post 4, Post 5, Post 6
Nuff said. Let's move on.
*And for the record, I enjoy reading FrGamble's messages in this thread. (Yes, he's a bigger man than I am; I'll be the first to admit that) Anyway, hope he continues to post.
Quote: WizardEven some animals understand this concept, that if we stick together we all come out better than if we each look after ourselves and immediate family only.
Wizard, it seems to me that your statement would have provoked anger, and or, commentary from those who fancy themselves conservatives. Yet no one has really commented. It is socialistic but that doesn't make it incorrect, yet, unfortunately there are so many narrow minded individuals that feel that any thought even remotely socialistic is bad. Let us not help those who need help for they will forever forget how to help themselves......or some nonsense like that.
Quote: steeldcoWizard, it seems to me that your statement would have provoked anger, and or, commentary from those who fancy themselves conservatives.
I've known some Ayn Rand extreme conservatives that think that any act of charity just enables weak people and incentivizes bad behavior. However, I'd like to think that most conservatives would help an old woman trying to lift a heavy object into her car if he had the chance.
However I think the point of establishing the moral order on God is NOT to scare people into doing good, that would indeed be a weak argument and poor motivator. Human beings are much more inspired to do good by being loved than by being threatened. The biggest problem is that without God I believe you lose the ability to say something is truly good or truly evil. We quickly fall into moral relativism and as already pointed out by Twirdman's examples in a previous post that degrades into selfishness and disaster for all. I recently came across this quote from the philosopher Richard Taylor that summarizes what I'm thinking:
"The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion."
