Religions

[Madeleine]

Doctrine in the middle ages and up to the c18 held that the unborn baby became a proper human being during the fifth month when the soul entered the baby. Doctrine for the past 150 years has held that a baby's soul is there from the moment of conception.

If Doctrine is not Totally Constant, then all sorts of awkward paradoxes appear.

We need some higher authority and moral compass under God's protection that is capable of providing us with the truth.

True enough. I reckon that's what the Bible is for. Since the Bible is God's word, what more do we need? A Church to interpret it? Then what - A Churchman to interpret the church's interpretation for us in the pulpit?

I see what you're saying, and I do admire your faith that God wouldn't have left us rudderless and without a compass in the world for the past 2,000 years; but I do not see how it *has* to follow that that compass and rudder is The Catholic Church. I think it's The Bible.

And that's exactly why Christ (God) established His Church for us, and promised that it could never be destroyed.

I agree, but would define 'His Church' in this context as all Christians who can say the Nicene or Apostles' Creeds and mean them in their heart, not just RCs. "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I". Nothing in there about adhering to any denomination or subset of the Church. All that is needed is for those present to be there together in honour of Jesus, and Jesus will be there. So the 'His Church' is (as far as I can see) every person on this planet who is prepared to join in prayer with another believer and follower of Christ.

[puddlejumper747]

Doctrine in the middle ages and up to the c18 held that the unborn baby became a proper human being during the fifth month when the soul entered the baby. Doctrine for the past 150 years has held that a baby's soul is there from the moment of conception. If Doctrine is not Totally Constant, then all sorts of awkward paradoxes appear.

I agree with that last part, but I'm really not sure that I see your point here.
Are you saying that you beleive Church Doctrine in this area has been inconsistent?

Since the Bible is God's word, what more do we need? A Church to interpret it?

Well....yes. (See next response....)

But I do not see how it *has* to follow that that compass and rudder is The Catholic Church. I think it's The Bible.

The Bible came from the Catholic Church. The Bible is not complete. The Bible is extremely hard to translate. Main Point: The Bible is the compass and rudder, but you don't just get to decide what it means for yourself. It is God's Word, but in a way that also makes it infinitely complex; there is almost always going to be some deeper and deeper meaning hiding behind every corner. We need some higher authority which has studied Scripture, researched the culture and time period that it was written in, identified the writing styles of the individual authors in that time period, compared the Scriptures with other known scientific truths and religious traditions, and that is able to clearly define for us what parts must be taken literally, what parts may not be taken literally, and what parts of Scripture are open for our own private interpretation. We can't all go out and just read the Bible once, decide what we believe the truth contained within might be, and then pull our favorite Biblical passages out of context in order to support our uneducated assumptions as a valid interpretation.

Then what - A Churchman to interpret the church's interpretation for us in the pulpit?

No, just a priest who can clearly and correctly explain the Church's teachings on the Holy Scripture for us.

All that is needed is for those present to be there together in honour of Jesus, and Jesus will be there.

In a way, yes. God is always everywhere. And He is certainly going to be present with all of those who are truly worshiping Him in spirit and truth. But Christ is not going to be physically present in all places at all times. And there's also certainly something to be said for the difference between knowing that you are correctly following God's laws, and simply believing that you probably are in most cases. All Christians worshiping Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity are "correct", but that doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of what their faith believes is also correct. It it would really be much more accurate to say that other Christian faiths are simply incomplete. They have a basic foundation on which to build upon, but then they attempt to fill in the missing pieces with their own explanations and theology....most of which is unfortunately not correct.

[Madeleine]

Doctrine in the middle ages and up to the c18 held that the unborn baby became a proper human being during the fifth month when the soul entered the baby. Doctrine for the past 150 years has held that a baby's soul is there from the moment of conception. If Doctrine is not Totally Constant, then all sorts of awkward paradoxes appear.

I agree with that last part, but I'm really not sure that I see your point here.
Are you saying that you beleive Church Doctrine in this area has been inconsistent?

If the church's Doctrine cannot be wrong, where does that leave us when Church Doctrine changes? If Church Doctrine once said that babies weren't people with souls until the middle of a pregnancy, but now says that they have a soul from conception then since they can't both be true it can't be the case that The Church is always correct in matters of faith and doctrine. If it can be wrong once then it isn't infallible.

[spg_1983]

If the church's Doctrine cannot be wrong, where does that leave us when Church Doctrine changes? If Church Doctrine once said that babies weren't people with souls until the middle of a pregnancy, but now says that they have a soul from conception then since they can't both be true it can't be the case that The Church is always correct in matters of faith and doctrine. If it can be wrong once then it isn't infallible.

excellent point, i asked my priest this once andhe couldnt answer me.

[puddlejumper747]

excellent point, i asked my priest this once and he couldnt answer me.

Such a shame.... But let's see if we can't fix that one for you right now, shall we?

If the church's Doctrine cannot be wrong, where does that leave us when Church Doctrine changes?

Good question. Better answer: Church Doctrine cannot change. Ever. (Note: Truth cannot change. God cannot change. God's laws cannot change.) We can only develop in our understanding of the conditions/disciplines surrounding it -- this is called Correct Development of Doctrine. For example, the Church has always taught, as Doctrine, that suicide (aka: self-murder) is always an intrinsically evil/immoral/disordered action. And for many years, the Church understood this and applied the discipline (non-doctrinal/infallible teaching, not required for us to believe as absolute truth) that since the people who commited suicide were almost certainly dying in a state of mortal sin, they would not be allowed to have a Christian funeral/burial. However, we now know (thanks to our modern science), that nearly every single person who actually commits suicide was actually suffering from some form of logic/mental disorder (such as depression). Therefore, it is extremely possible/reasonable for us to understand that most (if not all) of those people who commit suicide were not in their right mind, and therefore quite possibly incapable of making a logical, informed, free will decision. In which case, they might ultimately not be held completely accountable to God for this final action. In fact, they may have even suddenly realized what they were really doing at the last possible second, and sincerely repented for that action. Only God is capable of truly judging the souls of other people. Therefore, in light of that discovery, the Church immediately changed it's discipline concerning the doctrinal matter, and allowed for anyone to be given a Christian burial. But the Church Doctrine always remained consistent: Suicide is still an intrinsically evil/immoral/disordered objective action. So....no contradiction.

If Church Doctrine once said that babies weren't people with souls until the middle of a pregnancy, but now says that they have a soul from conception then since they can't both be true it can't be the case that The Church is always correct in matters of faith and doctrine. If it can be wrong once then it isn't infallible.

And you would certainly be correct....if that were really true.
Again, this is actually an example of Correct Development of Doctrine. See if these explanations helps at all:
Quote: jimmy I think it was something like 44 days that Aquinas said was when conception occured. The thing is, Aquinas is not the sole teacher of the faith. From the beginning, the Church has taught that abortion is evil and that it is murder. The fact that we have the science to prove that it is a human life is good, it has helped to show that life begins at the very beginning. Aquinas did not have this scientific proof. Aquinas's idea was never official teaching of the Church, although many may have believed it.
Quote: Lorarose Because previous understanding of the science of the matter was poor - that led to poor understanding of the moral implications. The more we learned about the truth of conception - the better the Church was able to conform her teaching to the truth of our souls at conception. The Church has never declared infalliblity in the area of science.

And I'll post this quote too, as a bit of a follow-up to our previous discussion:
Quote: jimmy I would agree that the Church includes all Christians, but there is an imperfect union between them. The Catholic Church is the fullness of truth, and consequently it is the summit of Christianity. We should all desire to profess the truth in its entirity. The bible is not good enough as a source of authority. It leads everyone to believe a different idea of what it says. There is only one correct truth, and we need a teaching authority like the Church to help us to understand it.
Further, the bible is not what Christ left on the earth, He left the Church. The Church pre-existed the bible by a few hundred years, but the Church still went on. The authority was there from the beginning to teach. The Church was not sola scriptura. When you think about it, the Church had to teach tradition. For the first 15 to 20 years after the ressurection, there were no writings that could be used to teach. The writings that were written were written to correct errors that were spreading and to teach the story of Jesus. They were written from the teachers of the faith and they were expounding the teachings of the Church with the inspiratation of God. It is not like God just shouted down to Paul, "This is what My Church teaches". No, it does not expound all the teachings because that is not the intent.
The thing about the bible that makes it need an interpreter is that it is written by some of the most holy and spiritual people to walk the earth. They wrote in a way that is above many peoples heads. If we have a teaching authority that is spiritual itself, then we have someone that can teach us the meanings of some of these passages that we can not understand. Having people like Augustine and Chrysostom and Athanasius to help us understand it is very helpful.
The large group of Church fathers is great because they are all very spiritual men who have taught the gospels in there own words, but it is all the same teachings. Reading these writings helps us to see the teachings from different peoples minds, and consequently can help us to understand it more and to put it into perspective. Further, the Church puts things in a simpler way of writing than does the bible. It says, this is what we teach, this is what we do not teach.