A Child's Abortion

xris, I'm a semi-atheistic Jew with no love for RC policies, but there have been plenty of changes in church dogma. Not, perhaps, on issues like contraception and abortion, but there have indeed been many.

Ecumenical council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nostra Aetate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you read any of the links provided by Aedes?

It would seem to me that, refering to Hindus and Buddhists, "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men." Is a drastic change from Crusading.

When faced with examples of rather extreme dogmatic shifts (going from Mother Church is the only way, to other traditions have worthy wisdom) you deny that there have been a change at all?

In each link there are lists of changes in dogma. You are either blind, playing some humorless joke, or stuck in your own anti-Church dogma that is just as irrational as the most irrational dogmas of the Church you criticize. This immovable detachment from reality for the sake of disparaging is the same sort of refusal to accept reality that causes many of the ills you so rightly criticize the Church for facilitating. You commit the very crime you decry!

What am I on about? Reality. It's quite a trip.

Acceptance of other faiths, whoopdi-do? Well, it's exactly what you asked for: an example of the Church changing its dogma. Careful what you wish for, I guess. The shift from Crusading to Acceptance is no small matter, either.

You know there has been no change in dogma, even though you read through the links that contain lists of changes in dogma? Strange sort of knowing, you have there, friend.

I would better understand if your objection was that these changes are "minor" or something like that, but to deny that any changes have been made at all is ahistorial in the extreme.

Or maybe you just do not know what dogma means in the Church. Check this out:

CatholicReference.net : Catholic Dictionary

Obviously, Catholic dogma has been changed many times throughout history: as a matter of fact. If you meant something other than dogma, again, I would better understand your angle on this. But given the definition of dogma, and the history, to say that the RCC has never changed its dogma is beyond left field, as they say here in the States.

Glad to see your mood has changed Tom

"Divine revelations" i think its defined as,now you tell me what revelations have changed in the last 2000 years.Now lets get down to the real nitty gritty as they say here in the UK.

No change in mood. Still frustrated at a reasonably intelligent person refusing to acknowledge what has been demonstrated.



We like that phrase on this side on the pond, too.

What dogma has changed? Again, Aedes provided you two links with lists of changes in RCC dogma.

I am not convinced that you gave those links much attention. You objected to my highlighting of the Church's opinion of Hinduism and Buddhism by saying that no Crusades were launched against then; yet take notice of another part of the Nostra Aetate link which states:

"Part three goes on to say that the Catholic Church regards the Muslims with esteem, and then continues by describing some of the things Islam has in common with Christianity and Catholicism: worship of One God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, Merciful and Omnipotent, Who has spoken to men; the Muslims' respect for Abraham and Mary, and the great respect they have for Jesus, whom they consider to be a Prophet and the Messiah and not God. The synod urged all Catholics and Muslims to forget the hostilities and differences of the past and to work together for mutual understanding and benefit."

Quite a shift from Crusading, wouldn't you say?

I tried, but you seemed to have ignored the entry I linked: dogma is doctrine taught by the Church. The Church went from calling Muslims heretics and godless barbarians to respecting the Muslim faith and promoting mutual understanding between the two faiths.

Yes, by definition, it is a change in dogma. In this particular instance of dogma regarding Islam, the change in dogma would be considered a clarification of revelation from God. Such clarifications of revelation are changes in dogma.

I dont know if you are being obtuse on purpose or by ignorance.

As the muslim faith denies christian beliefs and came after our saviour jesus of Nazareth it can not be considered as dogma revealed by scriptures or tradition.

Dogma is the traditions of the church eg. that contraception is a sin and the scriptures as we read them are to be obeyed.If the Pope has been informed by god to change these dogmas it has to be considered by the papal court and no such court has ever been held that changes these dogmas.

Making sounds of reconciliation are not changes in dogma but pragmatic views taken by successive popes.

I restate my view that the RC church by its intransigent conviction is unable to modernise and we need its destruction before these problems can be resolved.I have the same opinion of all organised faith driven organisations.I am a revolutionist in the purest of causes.

As a Jew you must know the controversy over holocaust gold being handled by the Popes representative and their involvement in aiding the Nazis escape justice.

I'm not the one making the absurd claim that Church dogma never changes.



What are you talking about? No one is saying that Islam is dogma; instead, it is being evinced that Church dogma regarding Islam has changed. Talk about obtuse, Xris, this is really straightforward stuff.



It's called an Ecumenical Council, and, yes, there have been such councils. Besides, the Pope can change dogma on his own by issuing what is called a Papal Bull.



If it is a change in Church teaching, it is a change in Church dogma. By definition.



No, you're an ahistorical obstinate dogmatist who does everything he can to paint religion in the worst light possible in spite of facts.

Honestly, I have never seen such a stubborn unwillingness to accept such a simple fact on this forum.

All the evidence has been presented. Why you are unable or unwilling to process and accept such a simple fact as the Church's ability to alter doctrine is something I can only guess at - but to publicly air my guesses as to the source of your stubbornness would require me to break forum rules and say rather negative things about you. As such, I'm done. :nonooo:

Your stubbornness is especially strange to me as admitting that the Church can change doctrine would in no way impede upon your ability to criticize the Church for harmful dogma - and even stranger because, in the case of contraception and abortion, I agree with your assessment of Catholic dogma.

For the erudition of anyone who gives a damn about gaining an honest understanding of this matter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22STEINFE.html

"FOUR decades ago, Roman Catholics were hit over the head by revisions of church teaching and practice authorized by the world's bishops at the Second Vatican Council."

That is SPECIFICALLY why I provided you with reading material about the church declaration in Vatican II that Jews were not to be held responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. This was the first time such a declaration had been made in the entire history of the church. This belief had been one of the major rationales for pogroms against Jews, and had been incorporated into other aspects of antisemitism like the "blood libel" charge. And the main motivation for this change in church position was the fact of the Holocaust.

---------- Post added 07-07-2009 at 03:17 PM ----------

xris and DT ... give each other a hug, we're all friends here

Sorry Aedes my view of Rome is tainted beyond redemption,it conspired to increase hatred towards Jews before ww2 and its involvement with the nazis and italy's strutting dictator is never to be forgiven.

I am not a Catholic; I could not defend my faith by defending Catholicism. Besides, I'm not even defending Catholicism at this point: I'm simply making the blatantly obvious point that Catholic dogma has changed in some respects over the past 2,000 or so years.

Hitler and the Nazis are not to be forgiven either -- but do you blame Angela Merkel or any other modern German for that matter?

it has immunity because of some strange reason its claimed holiness is above reproach.

Pope John Paul II was sincere and passionate with his many apologies. During his long reign as Pope, he said 'sorry' to Jews, Galileo, women, victims of the Inquisition, Muslims slaughtered by the Crusaders and almost everyone who had suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church through the years.[1] Even before he became the Pope, he was a prominent editor and supporter of initiatives like the Letter of Reconciliation of the Polish Bishops to the German Bishops from 1965. As Pope, he officially made public apologies for over 100 of these wrongdoings, including:

• The conquest of Mesoamerica by Spain in the name of the Church
  
• The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).
  
• Catholics' involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).
  
• The Church Hierarchy's role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).
  
• The injustices committed against women, the violation of women's rights and for the historical denigration of women (10 July 1995, in a letter to "every woman").
  
• The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (see the article Religion in Nazi Germany) (16 March 1998)
  
• For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague). When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church's reformers, and acknowledged that "independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation's moral education." It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants.
  
• For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating "the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions". (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).
  
• For the sins of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. (4 May 2001, to the Patriarch of Constantinople).
  

""An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.""[RIGHT]-Pope John Paul II [2][/RIGHT]