But they just know the Church will change!

If there is one sentiment that baffles me more than any other, it's this:

The Catholic Church will be changing her teachings, and I only need watch and wait. I am foolish for not seeing the "big picture" of how it's all going to go down. It's inevitable. The Church will come around, the Church will conform. It's just a matter of time.

In response, I question how many millennia have to pass without the Church changing before they'll concede the point?

Take a look at what a dissenting* Catholic named James said to me just the other day, about the foolishness of faithful Catholics (emphases mine):

It’s just as frustrating to me to see an intelligent person walking a rigid black and white line that will waver and shift in the coming centuries. When I taught each of my girls to drive they all exhibited the same myopic habit of looking 6 feet over the hood. My first correction to them was to look waaaay down the road to get the big picture, to see what was coming so as to be aware, while using peripheral vision to sort out any immediate hazards. Their driving improved immediately.

James believes that he has vision far into the future; he sees what's coming ahead. If only the Catholic Church could see what he sees or could know what he knows.

Well, I agree that somebody is missing the big picture here, but it's not the Church. The Church isn't looking "six feet over the hood", not at all. In fact, she started her engine over two thousand long years ago, and she began her journey looking out toward all of eternity. She was full of confidence in her mission and destiny then (as now), and she knew exactly where she was going. Two millennia later, she sees in her rearview mirror the ruins of every empire she passed along the way, even as she steadily cruises along, undeterred. She has not "wavered and shifted" off of the road and into any ditches, nor is there any credible sign that she ever will.

There is just no sign of it.

Dissenters and heretics and naysayers and ex-Catholics have been predicting "inevitable changes" since the first century of the Church's existence. Yet, they are the ones who took their eyes off the road. While looking sideways to gawk at shiny distractions, or while looking inward to contemplate the lint in their own navels, they lost the "big picture" and ran themselves into a ditch. Ouch.

But that's not how the Church rolls.

Let's walk through it:

The First Century -- Enemies of the Church are smugly predicting her fall, brutally persecuting her, violently trying to force the change themselves.
The Second Century -- Ditto
The Third Century -- Ditto
The Fourth Century -- Violence against the Church eases, but how 'bout them heretics! The Church is wrong, they say, and she must and will change. The heretics gain lots of followers but lose Christ. The Church keeps driving straight ahead.
The Fifth Century -- The Church still hasn't changed her teachings, still going strong. Dissenters, heretics, and apostates see only six feet over the hood, and they lose the big picture entirely.
The Sixth Century -- The Church still had not changed her teachings. Eyes on the road, driving smoothly forth.
The Seventh Century -- The Church continues to outlast her critics, i.e., the ones who confidently predict her inevitable assimilation to the ways of the world or to their own particular heresy. Same story in...
The Eighth Century
The Ninth Century
The Tenth Century
The Eleventh Century
The Twelfth Century
The Thirteenth Century
(Are you still with me?)
The Fourteenth Century
The Fifteenth Century
The Sixteenth Century -- Special note here: A bunch of Catholics disillusioned with sinners in the Church decide to jettison the Church entirely and preach brand new (heretical) doctrines; Church teaching still does not change, even as internal corruption is cleaned up. The Church continues to drive on her divinely appointed path while the Protestant Reformers and their followers splinter endlessly off-course in all directions.
The Seventeenth Century
The Eighteenth Century
The Nineteenth Century
The Twentieth Century
The Twenty-first Century

Still no change. Yawn. Just checking my watch here. Nope, we're good. Still taking the long view and not getting sidetracked.

The spirit and sins of the age in every culture have come and gone a thousand times over, and the Church has not bowed to any of them.

There is not a scintilla of evidence that the Church is about to reverse course.

But still I get, "Oh, it's just a matter of time now. You'll see. The house of cards will fall." And yet, no one ever sees, and the "house of cards" never falls.

My question: How much time must elapse until the critics are convinced?

It's a serious question, but it's largely rhetorical, of course. The critics will never be convinced in our own time, even as they weren't convinced in the First Century, or the Second, or the Fourth, or the Sixteenth, or the Twentieth.

There have been a million Jameses talking of the Church's inevitable change for centuries on end with not a hint of vindication. Their blinders won't allow them to see the Church that Christ established, the Church protected and charged with teaching the Truth both in season and out.

My advice to James and the others is to take James' advice and apply it to themselves: Stop with the myopic habit of looking only six feet over the hood at the fads and fancies of the day. Look waaaay down the road to get the big picture, use the experience of two millennia to understand what is coming so as to be aware, and use your peripheral vision to sort out any immediate hazards and shiny trinkets that would take you off the steady, narrow road and into a ditch. Your driving will improve immediately.

Your path will be stable, reliable, and clear to eternity.

+++++++

PS: Before anyone challenges me by presenting supposed "changes" in Church teaching, be sure to know the difference between a discipline and a doctrine.



*Updated to reflect that James may not be an ex-Catholic as I had originally believed, but rather a lapsed or dissenting Catholic. I can't really know, since he put a quick comment below and will not be returning to correct me from what I can tell.

Sorry, you're not allowed to do that.

This has been on my mind for a long time now.

I am going to be blunt.

You are not the arbiter of Christian doctrine.
You don't get to decide the tenets of Christianity.
You don't have permission to reverse or negate Christian teaching.

You don't have the authority to define Christianity.

Neither do I.

If you are a Catholic, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the moral law and the Creed are valid. If you are a Protestant, you don't get to personally interpret the Bible and tell us what you are sure Christ meant. If you are a secularist, you don't get remake Jesus in your own image, i.e., a New Agey, non-threatening guru who fits neatly into your own worldview.

Trust me, it's nothing personal.

You just simply don't have that option.

You didn't establish Christianity, and you have no permission to reinvent it.

You see, Christianity is a revealed religion.
It was given. It is handed down.

It is not open to anyone's personal interpretation, whether one's name is Arius, Nestorius, Luther, Kennedy, Pelosi, Chittister, or Miller.

You can choose to accept the whole of Christianity and her teachings, or you are free to reject them. You are even free to start your own religion, teaching whatever you'd prefer.

But you do not have the right to speak in the name of Christ's Church and define authentic Christian belief for yourself or others.

You do not have that right, because you do not have that authority. 

Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle (St. John) and the entire Deposit of Faith has been handed down intact by the only men to whom Christ delegated His authority: The Apostles and their successors, also known as the pope and the body of bishops. This teaching authority, or Magisterium, is not you, and it's definitely not me.

The Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, protects the Deposit of Faith from any deviation, addition, subtraction, reversal, contradiction, distortion, or destruction offered by those who wish Church teaching to be something it is not.

So, as earnest as you are, as sincere as you are, as studious as you are, as kind as you are, even as holy as you are, you are not allowed in any way to alter, bypass, morph, undermine, negate, or redefine Christian teaching on faith or morals and still insist that it's Christian.

You may receive the Faith, you may accept the Faith, and you may hand down the Faith pure and entire, but you may not be its arbiter.


Sorry, you're just plain not allowed to do that.



Related post: Authority

+++++++

For emphasis, and for the sheer joy and peace that faithful Catholics feel when the millennia melt away as we read the Early Fathers, I give you St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, extolling in 189 A.D. the selfsame faith we hold today. He writes of what Christians everywhere already knew… but which the heretics could not accept:

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). 

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2). 

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4). 

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1). 

"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2). 

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8). 

For more Fathers on Church authority and apostolic succession, go here.

.

Answer to DQS and Grand Prize Winner!!

I'm back with the answer to the Doctrinal Quiz Show, Church History Edition! Once again, I am quite impressed with the answers!

Here was the question I posed:

Over the past 2,000+ years, the Church has held many councils (i.e., gatherings of the world's bishops, often called "ecumenical councils"). These councils have been convened to combat heresy and define doctrine, among other things. Can you name the first two Church councils and the last two Church councils? For an extra edge toward the Grand Prize, please state the approximate date of each council and one major issue that was on the table.

And, here's how I would have answered it (keeping in mind that answers could vary and still get points):

The first Church council (some of you smarty-pants noticed that I gave a little leeway... not all were "ecumenical" councils) was the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). It occurred in the First Century (probably around the year 50 A.D.) The major issue was whether much of the Mosaic Law (such as circumcision) would be required of Gentile converts. In other words, would Gentile converts to Christianity have to become Jewish first? Peter and the other bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, declared that the answer was no.

The second Church council (and the first "ecumenical" council) was the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. The Church was combating the Arian heresy and needed to make very clear the nature of Christ's divinity and His relationship to the Father. From this council we received the Nicene Creed, which is still recited every Sunday at Mass after the homily.

The second most recent ecumenical council was the First Vatican Council ("Vatican I"), in 1869-1870. One major issue was the definition of Papal Infallibility.

The most recent ecumenical council was the Second Vatican Council ("Vatican II"), from 1962-1965. One major issue addressed was the liturgy. Another was the Church's relationship to the modern world.

Now, as for the scoring.... There was a maximum possible score of 12 points (three points for each council: one for naming the council, one for giving the approximate date, one for naming a major issue). Mrs. Blondies, Lisa Graas, JoAnna, R.J. Grigaitis, A Martha Trying to Be Mary, and Ruby -- you all did a great job and were in the running! But someone smoked you all, and we'll get to that in a minute.

In the meantime, here are the rest of the Bubble Awards!

The Not Only Were You in the Running, But You Might Have Won If You Weren't Such a Bundle of Nerves, Because I *Think* Your Date for Nicea Was a Typo Award goes to.... Ruby!!

The Expressed Incredulity With a Tinge of Smart-Mouth But it Totally Cracked Me Up Because I Know You Meant it in Love Award goes to.... Sew!! (Sew, just because you are you, you must have about ten Bubble Awards by now. I hope you have a big shelf for them all!)

The I Am Shocked But Consoled That an RCIA Class Actually Taught Such Things Award goes to.... Allie!!

The Okay, Fine, I Will Give You an Award For Answering First Award goes to.... Mary!!

(For those of you who are recent additions to the Bubble and haven't heard my awards disclaimer: I would love to continue handing out awards to everyone, but we do not use the liberal model here, and so not everyone will get an award, even if you are a good person and had a clever answer. Not getting an award will not harm you permanently, and it will help build your character.)

Now, finally, the GRAND PRIZE WINNER and winner of Jay Groft's newly released, beautiful Christmas CD goes to....

K!!!!

Not only does K win the CD (email me and I'll have it sent out to you!), but also the coveted Bubble Award Icon which can be used to win friends and influence people: 

Great, great job, K!!!!!

Good-night everyone, and be sure to join us next time for.... DOCTRINAL QUIZ SHOW!!!!

Catholics, you must understand this!

Do you know the difference between a doctrine and a discipline?

If not, you need to!

I have found that until a Catholic understands the distinction, he will be at a great disadvantage when someone challenges him on Church teaching, or when his own doubts creep in.

Here we go....

Doctrine

A doctrine is an unchanging Truth, part of what we call The Deposit of Faith (a.k.a. Sacred Tradition). The Deposit of Faith is the body of truth (faith and morals) that Christ left to His Apostles. The Apostles' successors (Popes and bishops) have preserved and passed this body of truth down through the generations. When Jesus promised His Apostles that the Holy Spirit would come to "lead you to all Truth" (John 16:13), He was talking doctrine.

Doctrine can be better understood over time, and through the centuries the Church has fleshed out its richness (this is called development of doctrine), but its essence does not change. Indeed, the Deposit of Faith can never be contradicted, reversed, added to, or subtracted from. The Holy Spirit sees to that.

Some examples of doctrines: The Ten Commandments; the truth and meaning of human sexuality; the nature of Christ and the Trinity; the Marian doctrines; the basic elements and nature of the seven Sacraments; the male-only priesthood, the Cycle of Redemption.

Hint for thinking of "faith and morals": 
Faith = The Creed (what we believe)
Morals = The Ten Commandments (how we live)


Discipline

A discipline is a rule or regulation which can and often does change. This is the "binding and loosing" authority that the Church received when Jesus said to Peter and the Apostles, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven" (Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:18). These rules/disciplines can be changed, but when they are in effect, the faithful are bound to them. Why do they exist? To help the faithful in each era become holy. Depending on times and cultures and circumstances, Popes and bishops will bind or loose the faithful according to the needs of the people of God at that time.

Some examples of disciplines: Canon Law; days of fasting and abstinence; Holy Days of Obligation; regulation of religious orders; priestly celibacy; liturgical rubrics (i.e., language of the liturgy, words/prayers/readings for liturgical celebrations, postures and gestures, etc.).

So, when someone says to you, "The Church is not the True Church because it changed its rules on eating meat on Fridays!" you say, "That's a discipline, and it can change!"

And when someone says, "The Church is going to change its teachings on contraception and homosexuality!" you say, "Those are doctrines, and they will never change!"

Any questions? I love questions!