Author Topic: Can Catholic Doctrine Change? (Read 1597 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** August 11, 2016, 07:21:44 AM »

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/catholic-doctrine-change.htm

Clarity on a much-misunderstood subject
francis-connell.jpg

Can Catholic Doctrine Change?

There is much confusion and misunderstanding, especially these days, about whether Catholic teaching can ever change, whether it has changed in the past, and if so, what this means for an infallible Church.

In a very readable and succinct article entitled “Does Catholic Doctrine Change?”, published in 1947, Fr. Francis J. Connell of the Catholic University of America tackles the issue head-on and, drawing the necessary qualifications and distinctions, shows what part of Catholic teaching can change, what cannot change, and how this relates to the Church’s infallibility and her divine mission to obtain the salvation of souls.

We are making available this invaluable essay in PDF format for free download below:

“Does Catholic Doctrine Change?”
by Fr. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.
(Download PDF here)

American Ecclesiastical Review
Vol. 117 (Nov. 1947), pp. 321-331

Needless to say, utterly lacking from Fr. Connell’s treatment is “Pope” Francis’ idiotic concept of the “god of surprises” that speaks through the Bergoglian surprise magisterium. Here are some highlights from Fr. Connell’s article:

Of course, no Catholic could accept in its unqualified form the statement that the teaching of the Catholic Church is subject to change…. At the same time, to exclude all manner of change from the Church’s teachings in different periods and under different circuмstances would be contrary both to history and to theology.

The purpose of this paper is to lay down the general principles on this subject and to point the way to the solution of the majority of the problems which center about the unchangeableness or changeableness of the Church’s teaching.

…the magisterium tacitly approves an opinion which is universally taught for a considerable length of time.

…in the dogmatic or moral teaching of the Church, which is included in a practical manner in what is commanded, approved or authorized [by the Church] for the spiritual welfare of all the faithful, by virtue of the protection of the Holy Spirit there can be found nothing that is false or detrimental to souls.

…

The faithful are obliged in conscience to accept [non-infallible] decisions internally, for even though their correctness is not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, those who formulate and promulgate them are undoubtedly aided by the Holy Spirit.

…Yet, at times we hear Catholics criticizing such teachings, apparently with the erroneous idea that they are bound to accept only the infallible pronouncements of the Church.

In other words: If the Vatican II Sect is the Catholic Church and Francis is the Pope, then it’s “game over”.

Fr. Connell’s essay is an excellent tool to use against the Vatican II Sect which has, clearly, substantially altered Catholic doctrine, imposed impious and harmful disciplinary laws, and has issued non-infallible teachings that are heretical, erroneous, impious, and absurd. Therefore, it has irrevocably and definitively disqualified itself from being able to claim to be the Catholic Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ.

On this topic, it is very helpful to review Bp. Donald Sanborn’s analysis of the errors of Vatican II, and how they differ substantially from pre-conciliar Catholic teaching:

The Modernist Errors of the Second Vatican Council

The logical consequence of all this is presented by Bp. Sanborn in this informative and compelling talk:

The Syllogism of Sedevacantism

The bottom line is simply that we know the Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church because God has given us a guarantee that the Catholic Church cannot do what the Vatican II Church has done. For details, our article “Have the Gates of Hell Prevailed?” is very instructive.

Fr. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R. (1888-1967), was one of the finest Catholic theologians ever produced by the Church in the United States. A close ally of Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton (1906-1969) and Mgr. George W. Shea (1910-1990), he battled the Jesuit Modernist Fr. John Courtney Murray on the error of religious liberty before Vatican II made the Murray error into its own teaching.

See Also:

Dynamite! The Vatican II Diaries of Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton
What John Vennari forgot to tell you: What else Mgr. Fenton said on Vatican II
Now What? How to be a Real Catholic today

Stubborn · « **Reply #1 on:** August 11, 2016, 08:21:30 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

“Does Catholic Doctrine Change?”
by Fr. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.

This is as far as anyone needs to read - Fr. Connell was another one of the respected 20th century theologians who helped pave the way for conciliar religion.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #2 on:** August 11, 2016, 09:19:50 AM »

Read the work and tell me precisely where he errs and why master theologian.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 11, 2016, 11:21:46 AM »

If Catholic doctrine cannot change, why then does Fr. Connell state the following in his article, "Falsehoods by One in Authority"?:

"They hold that when a person possesses a very important secret and someone is trying unjustly to discover it, this person is permitted to tell a direct falsehood as a means of protection. In such an event, they say, the falsehood is not to be classified as a lie, since the essential malice of a lie is the harm it does to society, and in the particular circuмstances described, society is aided rather than harmed by a falsehood. I believe that the opinion of these latter theologians is sufficiently probable to be used in practice."

This is contrary to both Scripture and traditional Church teaching, which states that a lie is never permissible under any circuмstance, yet Fr. Connell says it's acceptable?!

The mentioned article is posted on the CMRI website here:
cmri.org/adsum/adsum-2011-02.pdf

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #4 on:** August 11, 2016, 12:03:58 PM »

The dogma reformers begin by rejecting the clear, ancient dogmatic Athanasian Creed by believing that people can be saved even if they do not believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after that all common sense is lost. NOTHING should be discussed with them but their denial of Athanasian Creed , their denial of what was believed by ALL the Fathers , Saints, ALL of Tradition.

KISS - Only discuss the dogmatic Athanasian Creed with anyone that discusses the salvation of non-Catholics. Until you know what they believe about the Athanasian Creed, you are dealing with a total stranger. Any article, any writer, any amateur laymen, the first question to ask them is: "do you believe that to be saved, as a minimum, one must explicitly believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (in other words, do you believe the dogmatic Athanasian Creed as it is written?)

The writers of the OP article do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #5 on:** August 11, 2016, 12:53:11 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

The dogma reformers begin by rejecting the clear, ancient dogmatic Athanasian Creed by believing that people can be saved even if they do not believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after that all common sense is lost. NOTHING should be discussed with them but their denial of Athanasian Creed , their denial of what was believed by ALL the Fathers , Saints, ALL of Tradition.

KISS - Only discuss the dogmatic Athanasian Creed with anyone that discusses the salvation of non-Catholics. Until you know what they believe about the Athanasian Creed, you are dealing with a total stranger. Any article, any writer, any amateur laymen, the first question to ask them is: "do you believe that to be saved, as a minimum, one must explicitly believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (in other words, do you believe the dogmatic Athanasian Creed as it is written?)

The writers of the OP article do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written.

Incredible. Perhaps you should read before posting. He speaks when a person can first receive Communion for instance.

He says:

Quote

Of course, no Catholic could accept in its unqualified form the statement that the teaching of the Catholic Church is subject to change; for such a statement, as it stands, is irreconcilable with the fundamental Catholic dogma that one of the prerogatives with which Christ endowed His Church is infallibility. At the same time, to exclude all manner of change from the Church's teachings in different periods and under different circuмstances would be contrary both to history and theology.

You guys are disproportionate.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #6 on:** August 11, 2016, 02:10:13 PM »

Quote

Quote from: Last Tradhican
The dogma reformers begin by rejecting the clear, ancient dogmatic Athanasian Creed by believing that people can be saved even if they do not believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after that all common sense is lost. NOTHING should be discussed with them but their denial of Athanasian Creed , their denial of what was believed by ALL the Fathers , Saints, ALL of Tradition.

KISS - Only discuss the dogmatic Athanasian Creed with anyone that discusses the salvation of non-Catholics. Until you know what they believe about the Athanasian Creed, you are dealing with a total stranger. Any article, any writer, any amateur laymen, the first question to ask them is: "do you believe that to be saved, as a minimum, one must explicitly believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (in other words, do you believe the dogmatic Athanasian Creed as it is written?)

The writers of the OP article do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written.

Incredible. Perhaps you should read before posting. He speaks when a person can first receive Communion for instance.

Rat poison is 99% nutritious food. Would anyone eat rat poison? The writers of the OP article are examples of those dogma refiners who do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written, they believe that people can be saved without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. No one should discuss or begin to read any of their writings without the writers first revealing their true belief and then thereafter only discuss their denial of the Athanasian Creed. If the devil was red and had horns, everyone would recognize him.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #7 on:** August 11, 2016, 02:42:14 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote
Quote from: Last Tradhican
The dogma reformers begin by rejecting the clear, ancient dogmatic Athanasian Creed by believing that people can be saved even if they do not believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after that all common sense is lost. NOTHING should be discussed with them but their denial of Athanasian Creed , their denial of what was believed by ALL the Fathers , Saints, ALL of Tradition.

KISS - Only discuss the dogmatic Athanasian Creed with anyone that discusses the salvation of non-Catholics. Until you know what they believe about the Athanasian Creed, you are dealing with a total stranger. Any article, any writer, any amateur laymen, the first question to ask them is: "do you believe that to be saved, as a minimum, one must explicitly believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (in other words, do you believe the dogmatic Athanasian Creed as it is written?)

The writers of the OP article do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written.

Incredible. Perhaps you should read before posting. He speaks when a person can first receive Communion for instance.

Rat poison is 99% nutritious food. Would anyone eat rat poison? The writers of the OP article are examples of those dogma refiners who do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written, they believe that people can be saved without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. No one should discuss or begin to read any of their writings without the writers first revealing their true belief and then thereafter only discuss their denial of the Athanasian Creed. If the devil was red and had horns, everyone would recognize him.

Sincere heretics who follow Feeney are still heretics.

Arvinger · « **Reply #8 on:** August 11, 2016, 05:07:10 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Last Tradhican
Quote
Quote from: Last Tradhican
The dogma reformers begin by rejecting the clear, ancient dogmatic Athanasian Creed by believing that people can be saved even if they do not believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after that all common sense is lost. NOTHING should be discussed with them but their denial of Athanasian Creed , their denial of what was believed by ALL the Fathers , Saints, ALL of Tradition.

KISS - Only discuss the dogmatic Athanasian Creed with anyone that discusses the salvation of non-Catholics. Until you know what they believe about the Athanasian Creed, you are dealing with a total stranger. Any article, any writer, any amateur laymen, the first question to ask them is: "do you believe that to be saved, as a minimum, one must explicitly believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (in other words, do you believe the dogmatic Athanasian Creed as it is written?)

The writers of the OP article do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written.

Incredible. Perhaps you should read before posting. He speaks when a person can first receive Communion for instance.

Rat poison is 99% nutritious food. Would anyone eat rat poison? The writers of the OP article are examples of those dogma refiners who do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written, they believe that people can be saved without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. No one should discuss or begin to read any of their writings without the writers first revealing their true belief and then thereafter only discuss their denial of the Athanasian Creed. If the devil was red and had horns, everyone would recognize him.

Sincere heretics who follow Feeney are still heretics.

He talked about the Athanasian Creed and its explicit teaching that no one can be saved without faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, and you call him Feeneyite heretic, even though absolute necessity of believing in the Trinity and Incarnation fr salvation does not exclude Thomitic BoD - that show once again your inability to deal with the Athanaian Creed, and that you don't care at all about Thomostic BoD. What you really promote is salvation without faith in Christ and the Incarnation, which is contrary to how Saints understood BoD and contrary to the Athanasian Creed, but in line with Vatican II.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** August 11, 2016, 08:10:53 PM »

In the Anti-Modernist Oath of St. Pius X appears the statement that Catholics must believe dogmas/doctrines in their ORIGINAL sense, the sense intended by the Fathers who defined them. Consequently, those who would explain the Athanasian Creed as allowing for implicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation must PROVE that this was the intended sense of the Fathers who wrote it. Dogma Refiners insist that the Church LATER came to better understand the dogma, even to the point of claiming that the Church later believed the dogma to mean the opposite of what it actually says. These servants of the devil claim that those who take the dogma at face value are heretics for doing so. What a horrific diabolical inversion.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** August 11, 2016, 08:14:42 PM »

Quote from: Arvinger

He talked about the Athanasian Creed and its explicit teaching that no one can be saved without faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, and you call him Feeneyite heretic, even though absolute necessity of believing in the Trinity and Incarnation fr salvation does not exclude Thomitic BoD - that show once again your inability to deal with the Athanaian Creed, and that you don't care at all about Thomostic BoD. What you really promote is salvation without faith in Christ and the Incarnation, which is contrary to how Saints understood BoD and contrary to the Athanasian Creed, but in line with Vatican II.

Yeah, these guys at one point denounced Nishant as a "Feeneyite" even though he believes strongly in BoD. Why? Because Nishant also believes in the requirement for explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation for salvation. I guess that makes St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Feeneyites. When I was at the SSPX seminary in Winona, one of the professors there also believed in and taught explicit faith. He was chided by Bishop Williamson for being "dangerously close to Feeneyism."

OHCA · « **Reply #11 on:** August 11, 2016, 08:29:09 PM »

But... But...BoD...

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #12 on:** August 12, 2016, 05:39:34 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Last Tradhican
Quote
Quote from: Last Tradhican
The dogma reformers begin by rejecting the clear, ancient dogmatic Athanasian Creed by believing that people can be saved even if they do not believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after that all common sense is lost. NOTHING should be discussed with them but their denial of Athanasian Creed , their denial of what was believed by ALL the Fathers , Saints, ALL of Tradition.

KISS - Only discuss the dogmatic Athanasian Creed with anyone that discusses the salvation of non-Catholics. Until you know what they believe about the Athanasian Creed, you are dealing with a total stranger. Any article, any writer, any amateur laymen, the first question to ask them is: "do you believe that to be saved, as a minimum, one must explicitly believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (in other words, do you believe the dogmatic Athanasian Creed as it is written?)

The writers of the OP article do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written.

Incredible. Perhaps you should read before posting. He speaks when a person can first receive Communion for instance.

Rat poison is 99% nutritious food. Would anyone eat rat poison? The writers of the OP article are examples of those dogma refiners who do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written, they believe that people can be saved without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. No one should discuss or begin to read any of their writings without the writers first revealing their true belief and then thereafter only discuss their denial of the Athanasian Creed. If the devil was red and had horns, everyone would recognize him.

Sincere heretics who follow Feeney are still heretics.

Sincere heretics who follow Fenton are still heretics.

You are a blasphemer. When did the Church excommunicate Mosignor Fenton?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #13 on:** August 12, 2016, 05:41:41 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

But... But...BoD...

You act like Church teaching, which I present, claims all ignorant will be saved as if ignorance is a sacrament. You mischaracterize the teaching so you can condemn it which is dishonest and underhanded.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #14 on:** August 12, 2016, 05:43:13 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote
Quote from: Last Tradhican
The dogma reformers begin by rejecting the clear, ancient dogmatic Athanasian Creed by believing that people can be saved even if they do not believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after that all common sense is lost. NOTHING should be discussed with them but their denial of Athanasian Creed , their denial of what was believed by ALL the Fathers , Saints, ALL of Tradition.

KISS - Only discuss the dogmatic Athanasian Creed with anyone that discusses the salvation of non-Catholics. Until you know what they believe about the Athanasian Creed, you are dealing with a total stranger. Any article, any writer, any amateur laymen, the first question to ask them is: "do you believe that to be saved, as a minimum, one must explicitly believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (in other words, do you believe the dogmatic Athanasian Creed as it is written?)

The writers of the OP article do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written.

Incredible. Perhaps you should read before posting. He speaks when a person can first receive Communion for instance.

Rat poison is 99% nutritious food. Would anyone eat rat poison? The writers of the OP article are examples of those dogma refiners who do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written, they believe that people can be saved without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. No one should discuss or begin to read any of their writings without the writers first revealing their true belief and then thereafter only discuss their denial of the Athanasian Creed. If the devil was red and had horns, everyone would recognize him.

I'm casting my pearls before swine.