Orthodox Objections

In the Davidic Kingdom, the king would give a key to one man which would make him essentially the prime minister who would act on behalf of the king. Jesus Christ is the son of David, making Him the eternal Davidic King and He gave keys to only Peter despite giving binding and loosing power to all apostles.

The Catholic Church has never changed its stance on usury. Usury has never been defined as merely charging money on a loan. Usury is defined as charging money on a loan merely for time passing rather than for a just title like risk, opportunity loss, etc. Those can be linked to time passing, but that’s different than charging money simply for the time passing with none of those just titles present. Some might have understood usury to mean merely charging money on a loan, but that’s never how the Catholic Church defined it.

Claim: Basil taught that Jews, Pagans, and even people who shed blood for Jesus go to hell if they do not join the Catholic Church before they die. This contradicts Vatican II teaching that non-Catholics can be saved due to invincible ignorance.

Answer: The objective state is not equivalent to the subjective state. The objective state refers to a person’s situation as it appears from the outside (ex. Jew is not baptized, celebrates Yom Kippur, and does not view Jesus as God). The subjective state refers to one’s interior disposition (knowledge, freedom, culpability) (the degree to which one intentionally rejects God and the Church) (ex. Jew who has been taught lies about the Church or hasn’t heard the Gospel in a comprehensible way and sincerely seeks God so believes the Church to be anti-God due to what he knows). Invincible ignorance does not mean the visibly non-catholic person dies invisibly separated from the Catholic Church. It means that God can unite such a person to the Church by grace before death, even though he never achieved visible membership in this life.

Short Answer: Pius X condemned the modernist claim that dogma is a human invention that evolves endlessly according to human consciousness. He did not condemn the Catholic doctrine that the Church’s understanding of the fixed, apostolic deposit of faith deepens over time. His target was Loisy’s modernism, not Vincentian development.

Long Answer: First off, change does not always mean contradiction of a previous meaning. Pius X's oath against modernism does not say there can never be change in doctrine, like a deeper understanding of the doctrine thanks to development. The text says there can be no change in its meaning (change of meaning: Christ was not actually divine, the Resurrection wasn’t historical, the sacraments are only symbolic) (meaning kept, doctrine developed: 1st century: the Church professes Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 4th century: The Church defines “consubstantial” against Arianism.) Even in the same oath St Pius X presupposes doctrinal development “I accept… the external proofs of revelation… well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time” This implies the Church must continually articulate doctrine in a way suited to new eras. That is development. The part that condemns claiming doctrine is a man made product that has been developed by man is just that: Christian doctrine and its development is not man made. It’s given by God through His Church.