How often does doctrine change?

[seebs]

According to the FAQ, if I read it correctly, doctrine can be changed or condemned. How often does this actually happen? Ever?

How would you feel if the church changed a doctrine which had substantially affected your life?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Doctrines can be modified in light of a deeper understanding. Every papal letter shifts doctrine at least a little bit, but I don't know how often "big" changes occur.

Disciplines (use of Latin vs. vernacular, etc) can be changed whenever the Church sees the need.

Dogmas (Trinity, Divinity of Christ, Transubstantiation, etc) cannot change.

I'm not sure how I would feel. It probably depends on which doctrines changed and why they were changing them.

 

[VOW]

To Seebs:

A lot of older Catholics were very disturbed when Vatican 2 brought about changes. Many misinterpreted the whole intention to bring the celebration of the Mass closer to the people. You'll find a lot of "old-fashioned folks" who still look for the Latin Mass, and want the priest to face away from the congregation during the Consecration.

Some folks misconstrue things like meatless Fridays, or the shortened fast before receiving the Eucharist. You'll hear complaints "what about all those people in Hell today who ate meat on Friday?"

Of course they aren't in Hell.

For some people. change is welcomed. For others, it's upsetting. And you're going to find that in every aspect of life.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[seebs]

Interesting.

So, any of you have any ideas about doctrines you think probably should be changed? I know that Catholicism is not generally the religion of believing that the Church is wrong, but I'm curious; I mean, what happens if, three years from now, a new Vatican council declares that, in some cases, a second marriage can be sacramentally valid, even though the first one was too? Or, say, that priests who feel they have no calling to celibacy may marry?

Would these be Big Deals, or would they just be gradual changes or refinement in the way the Church understands dogma?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I would be a bit "ticked off" if contraception was later approved, but I would feel good knowing I did what I thought was right, and trusted in the Church for guidance.

 

[Kotton]

Since doctrine is the way in which we teach the original deposit and defined dogma, then we will see changes in the manner of that teaching. Emphasis can be placed upon one part that is most important at that time, such as refuting a line of thinking that borders on heresy. However, never does the doctrine change the deposit or dogma. As fragment said:

Doctrines can be modified in light of a deeper understanding.

That deeper understanding is the most misunderstood issue we encounter.  Even poorly catechized Catholic get confused. Is it any wonder that the majority who leave the Church, do so from ignorance

You'll hear complaints "what about all those people in Hell today who ate meat on Friday?"

I know VOW, this is the common retort from RR. Sometimes I believe I knew more about Catholic doctrine in elementary school than they profess now.

Kotton

 

[Kotton]

Originally posted by seebs
I mean, what happens if, three years from now, a new Vatican council declares that, in some cases, a second marriage can be sacramentally valid, even though the first one was too? Or, say, that priests who feel they have no calling to celibacy may marry? 

The marriage being sacramental seems to tie back to apostolic teaching, and would therefore fall under 'deposit'. I cannot imagine such a change. Now celibacy is a 'disapline' of the Church, so I have no problem with a change if it seems warranted. Although if we look at the Orthodox churchs, they ordain married men BUT do not alow priests to marry.

Kotton