How does church teaching change?
Every doctrine or practice familiar to Catholics has a history of its own, and some official expressions of church teaching are quite recent, such as the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and Assumption of Mary (1950). That doctrine is slow to become official or may even change has to do with the nature of divine revelation: By definition, it is God’s self-giving, and God cannot be fully captured by any human expression. The growth, change, and expansion of church teaching is often referred to as the “development of doctrine,” an expression employed by English theologian Cardinal John Henry Newman in an 1845 essay.
The impetus for a change or development often arises from the experience of the Christian community, especially when some Christians have responded one way to a problem and some another. The first major dispute in the early church, for example—whether Gentiles must first become Jews before joining the church—arose because of St. Paul’s success in spreading the gospel among non-Jews. It took a gathering in Jerusalem to determine that Gentile Christians were not bound by Jewish law.
Since then church authorities have come together in councils of various types to render judgments on almost every conceivable matter, from clerical celibacy to the relationship between the divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ. Some were local, called to deal with a particular problem. Others have come to be known as “ecumenical” because they gathered a large portion of the bishops of the time; the decisions of the first seven of these gatherings are recognized by the majority of Christians as binding on all the baptized.
As monasteries took central stage in Christian life in the early Middle Ages, the practice and teaching of monks became increasingly important. From monasteries in Ireland came the practice of private confession, later accepted as one of the seven sacraments at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. A bitter ninth-century dispute between two monks led to a more specific understanding of what happens to the bread and wine during Mass. Later termed “transubstantiation” and explained by the 13th-century theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, the concept was accepted into church teaching definitively by the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
Since the Reformation, Catholic teaching has tended to rely on the papacy as the final arbiter of authentic development, reflected in the First Vatican Council’s definition of papal infallibility in 1870. But even that was modified by the Second Vatican Council, which placed papal infallibility in relationship to the infallibility of the whole People of God when they speak with one voice on a matter of faith, and of the college of bishops, which shares the charism when it speaks unanimously.
Seen in retrospect, the development of doctrine can seem messy and disorganized, not unlike the conflicts that often have accompanied changes in church teaching. That can be disconcerting, but Cardinal Newman offers comfort: “To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.” USC
Bryan Cones is managing editor of U.S. Catholic. This article appeared in the June 2010 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 75, No. 6, page 46).
bunk
By bob (not verified) on Monday, August 16, 2010the Church has not changed. First the term doctrine is used incorrectly here by Mr. Cones. Usury, priestly celibacy, slavery, forced conversions etc are NOT DOCTRINE. And the doctrines on Mary and transubstantiation ARE what the Apostles believed. The words we use for them are different, true, but that does not take them away, so (1) this article and Mr. Cones' comments are incorrectly defining doctrine and then proceeding to show how it has changed , which makes the article questionable on its face. And (2) the article is playing semantics here with 'immaculate conception' and 'transubstantiation'- for example Trinity is not in the Bible either so one could (incorrectly) argue that Peter and Pal defined 'God' differently than we do. Bunk. Trinity is in the Bible in its substance, as we see in the New Testament many references to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is the angel Gabriel speaking to Mary, and there is the Great Commission from Jesus before He ascended, and others too.
A lot of under-thought word games here from that cavalierly distort Catholic fundamentals.
Bunk.
"That doctrine is slow to
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, July 14, 2010"That doctrine is slow to become official or may even change has to do with the nature of divine revelation."
Doctrine may change, actually change?
Official Church doctrine?
So there are doctrines that have not just expressed a previously unexpressed truth, but that represent an actual change from what was previously taught?
I'd like an example, please.
Changes in actual doctrine
By Bryan Cones on Thursday, July 15, 2010The morality of slavery, the morality of usury, the condemnations of religious freedom and democracy (official papal teaching), forced conversions, the permissibility of torture, the necessity of baptism for salvation (considered settled doctrine for 1,000 years); even the Chalcedonian formulation of the divine and human natures of Christ was arguably a reversal of previous conciliar teaching. This does not include "novelties," such as original sin (invented by Augustine and rejected as he formulated it by the churches of the East), the Immaculate Conception of Mary, papal infallibility, the seven (and only seven) sacraments, and transubstantiation, which would have been unheard of and even rejected by the ancient church. There are also contradictions that remain in church teaching, notably between the decrees fo the Council of Constance, which declares that a general council of the church is its highest governing body, and the First Vatican Council, which says that it is the pope.
Bryan Cones
Changes in doctrine/ reply to Bryan
By Eminem-Recovery in stores now (not verified) on Thursday, July 15, 2010Well said Bryan.... I think you're wrong in part, but I admit that parts of it do shake me up & challenge me.
On one hand, it's important to underscore that truth cannot change. If something's true, it's objectively true .... right? Maybe what you're saying is that the Church struggles to find out what the truth really is about certain subjects, over time ? This could make sense to me.
I don't think original sin is a novelty though. I think it is spoken of by St Paul in the Bible, just not with the precise terms "original sin." Similarly, I don't think the early Church would have rejected Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception. These were implicitly believed in, but without the precise theological terms & definitions that would come later.
I also don't think that the Church ever *officially* taught that usury or forced conversions were okay.
Slavery / reply to Bryan
By Eminem-Recovery in stores now (not verified) on Thursday, July 15, 2010-
But the slavery issue, that does admittedly create a problem for me, as St Paul ok'd slavery in the Bible.
Perhaps this problem could be worked out by saying: Whereas slavery or servitude is not forbidden per se by the Divine Law, with the passage of time and with changes that take place in the social landscape, with increasing compassion and increasing awareness of human dignity in the Church (and among all humanity, hopefully), societies should move away from slavery and toward different models of being. (???? --- I'm just searching here)
(Perhaps the same could be said of torture as well.)
In reality though, most of us today in 2010 are still slaves, only for 8 hours a day, not 24.
We are slaves to our bosses for 8 hours a day. I think we should move away from THAT model as well ! : )
(By the way, to my right-wing conservative friends, thank God we have GOVERNMENT to at least put SOME checks and regulations on the behavior of these "bosses", so that they can't beat us, whip us, punch us, deny us our pay, fire us for getting pregnant, fire us for being ugly, etc etc etc)
How does church teaching change?
By Matthew (not verified) on Wednesday, June 16, 2010***There are many other Christian writings from the same time period, but the Church chose not to include them in the canon of Holy Scripture. Your interpretation of 1 Tim 3 is not shared by the organization that decided that 1 Tim 3 is Holy Scripture.***
Nevertheless, although Catholicism and the "Holy Scripture"--Canon 2 or the Septuagint doesn't include Canon 1(other books) as authoritative, they are still referenced by Catholic scholars and theologians.
Your argument is weak.
The price for change.
By Prot4 (not verified) on Wednesday, June 16, 2010Things do change in the catholic church so much so that it cannot claim to be Apostolic nor scripturally based. The examples above on Mary's immaculate conception and priestly celibacy are 2 clear examples as being against what the apostles taught. There is a steep price to pay for following development of doctrine theory. It is no longer apostolic.
True Church
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, June 16, 2010The way I look at it the fact that the Church is the one that goes back to the apostles and the pope is their successor is the same as the fact that the United States is the United States and the president is the president regardless of what you think of him or the development of the country. I havent' been wild about most of the presidents in my lifetime but unlike Birthers and others who rediculously try to prove that President Obama is not a legitimate president I've accepted all of them as the Chief Executive whether I liked them or not. Saying the Catholic Church isn't the one started by Jesus and the apostles is like saying the United States isn't the United States anymore because it's changed too much from its beginning. I know there are some who say that but that's nuts and historically wrong. If you don't like the U.S. you can leave it, if you don't like the Church you can leave it, but they are what they are.
True Church
By Rick (not verified) on Monday, July 12, 2010Let's keep in mind that there were many churches started by the apostles and as St Paul points out in 1 Cor 3:4, the churches were started by mere men but the Church belongs to Christ.
Let's be specific, the apostles had primacy, then the primacy fell to St Peter and St Paul, as apostolic leaders, and was that way until 1054 when the Holy Roman Empire decided that the Pope should have primacy, alone.
I dare say neither St Peter nor St Paul, and I suspect the rest of the apostles would not recognize the church today and would be shocked at the post apostolic revelation that led to some Catholic dogmas today. In the first two centuries, many things we do today were considered heresies.
It would be a refreshing change to return to the first century church mode and follow the teachings of the apostles as outlined in the New Testament, remember, the New Testament comprises the traditions that we were admonished to follow, not what we do as a result of the councils in the middle ages.
BTW, I am an active Roman Catholic.
Addendum
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, June 16, 2010Or you can do what a lot of us Cradle/Cultural/Cafeteria Catholics do and ignore the b.s. The Italian equivelant of "Don't cry over spilled milk" is "The Pope dies, make another". The Church isn't the men who run it.
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.

