Can the Church change its teaching?

[una_fides]

The gospel:

Jesus is Son of God, Mary is His mother.
Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
Jesus lived a sinless life.
Jesus was crucified, He died and rose from the dead.
All who believe in Him will have eternal life.

There are protestant groups that do not believe that Jesus is God. In fact, in the early Church, during the times of Arianism, it has been estimated that a majority of the world’s bishops at the time were heretics and denied the divinity of Christ!
There are several protestant groups that believe that Jesus is the same person as the father and that the Spirit is just the Father’s Spirit–all one God and one person.
There are protestant groups that believe that Jesus was a mere man and that he had passions like we do to which he succumbed. I even heard a liberal deacon once state that Jesus might have lusted after Mary Magdeline and indicated that lust is not a sin!
There was an early Church heresy that denied that Jesus was a man who was crucified and instead they believed that Jesus was a spirit and it only appeared he died. There are also many protestant groups that deny the resurrection. There are even some very liberal people who consider themselves Catholic who believe and teach that Jesus didn’t bodily rise from the dead.
“All who believe in him have eternal life.” A simple statement but what does it mean? No consensus. Does that mean that one merely has to have faith alone and he will have eternal life? (Sola fide) Or does it mean that a man must have faith and works as St. James clearly taught in his epistle? Is baptism the sacrament of faith in which man enters the Church or is it just an ordinance and a mere symbol of already existing faith? If one has faith, can he loose it? If he looses faith, can he still be saved? Does one also need hope and charity? Faith working through charity to be saved as Scripture also teaches.

The list goes on and on. So far the only statement that you’ve made above that I am not aware of any contrary views–though I’m sure there’s someone out there who teaches or believes otherwise–is that Mary was the mother of Jesus. However, how do you define Mother? Does that mean she gave birth to him? Just raised him? And was it a Virgin birth or did she conceive from a man?

The only consensus so far that you have demonstrated is that there is no consensus.

 

[una_fides]

This is what I was responding to. The idea of the Catholic Church being the ONLY church being guided by the Holy Spirit. It reminds me of the Pharisees in Act 15.

You are looking for parallels in the wrong places. How about the parallel of Noah’s ark, which the fathers universally understood to be a prefigurement of the Church.
Check out this compilation of writings regarding the ark of the Church

Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Do you think the first Gentile believers knew about the full deposit of faith?

Yes, the Gentiles were instructed in the truth faith and were baptized into the Church. The topic of discussion from the Jerusalem Council was whether the Gentiles had to follow the law of Moses to be saved. The outcome was that they were told that upon entering the Church they would not have to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses. They were under Christ and were to follow him and his teachings since the old law was only a schoolmaster designed to point to Christ. By the way, who decided this issue at this first Church Council? Who had the final say? How can we know that the Gentiles did not have to follow the old law for salvation???
I’ll give you a hint. It has four marks: one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic.

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment: 25 It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul: 26 Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things. 28 For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things.
The Holy Spirit and the apostles share in the decision. The apostles led the first council as an example of how the Spirit works through his Church. The apostles passed down their authority to their successors. What Jesus said to his apostles still rings true today for those who hold their seats of authority:
Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

 

[una_fides]

Many of them come from false Catholic churches. Not all Catholic churches are the same and the Church has not always taught the deposit of faith consistently.The teachings vary in different parts of the world at different times in history.

If someone teaches a different faith, he is not teaching the Catholic faith even if he is a priest or bishop teaching in a Catholic Church. Through his act of embracing heresy, he has severed himself from the body of Christ. Jesus did not ensure that no individual priests or bishops would go astray and teach error. But He did promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, and we know that when the Church definitively binds a doctrine it is bound regardless of whether individual rogue priests who abuse their free will agree with it and accept it and teach it or not.

 

[sidbrown]

Where does any post Vatican II document explicitly state that a Muslim or Buddhist can be saved outside the Church? If they are saved, they are saved in the sole ark of salvation, which is the Catholic Church. The question is whether a Muslim or Buddhist or anyone else who is not a part of the visible Church is invincibly ignorant of the faith and not in any way guilty for not entering it. Such people–bear in mind–who meet such a qualification are not thereby saved through their ignorance because they still have other great sins on their souls that will need to be forgiven. If they are invincibly ignorant and have perfect charity for God, which entails perfect contrition for their sins they could be saved granted they also lead a good life and follow the dictates of their consciences without blame. This is a summary and compilation of the requirements for such people that the Church has defined in toto. For these very few souls, post Vatican II documents do not state that they will necessarily be saved in their ignorant state either. They simply state that they “can be saved.” We still do not know and cannot entirely rule out that for these very few souls, God could potentially send to them an angel, infuse them with some divine knowledge prior to death, or send them a missionary from which they would gladly and openly receive the truth and be saved in the Church through a conscious desire for baptism rather than as some speculate that they could be saved by a certain unconscious desire. Either way, they would be saved in the Church through their desire for baptism animated by perfect charity, for outside of the Church there is no salvation.

I didn’t see any mention of invincible ignorance in what you quoted before:

Pope Benedict XV

(1914-1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Here it flatly states that unless a man believe faithfully and firmly in Catholicism, he cannot be saved. Do you then claim that a Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim or a Buddhist believe firmly and faithfully in the Catholic religion? It is difficult to believe that Muslims believe firmly and faithfully in the Catholic religion. If they do, then I don’t understand why they would have the death penalty in some Muslim countries for those who convert to Catholicism?

 

[ron77nyc]

Why do you trust in the canon but do not trust the Church that compiled it, preserved it, and told the world that it was the Word of God?

As the Church travels through history the hierarchy becomes more and more worldly minded than Peter, the apostles and the early church fathers. The Church today neglects instruction given by the apostles in the bible but when they interpret the scriptures the end result is an interpretation that makes them superior and blameless. This is Phariseeism. Now I know someone will quote a pope apologizing for wrongs that were committed in the past but to me that’s like when the tobacco companies told people to stop smoking after being sued. They did it because they had to, not because they wanted to.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Many of them come from false Catholic churches. Not all Catholic churches are the same and the Church has not always taught the deposit of faith consistently.The teachings vary in different parts of the world at different times in history.

I’m not going to defend the ambiguous writings of the post Vatican II Popes or Catechisms, but I would ask you to quote me the most obvious example of what you see as a change in Church teaching before Vatican II.

I will agree with you that many of the post Vatican II teachings at least seem to contradict what the Church has always taught. They are usually ambiguous enough to allow room for interpreting them in accord with what the Church has always taught, but I admit that they seem to teach the contrary.

 

[ron77nyc]

I’m not going to defend the ambiguous writings of the post Vatican II Popes or Catechisms, but I would ask you to quote me the most obvious example of what you see as a change in Church teaching before Vatican II.

Salvation by being good was the norm for Catholics before Vatican II. Faith and grace were occasionally mentioned but they had nothing to do with the end result. Salvation was attained by good works; going to confession, abstaining from meat on Friday and not missing mass on Sunday. If you followed all the rules and died before committing your next sin after confession you would go to heaven.

Salvation by works was settled in the Council of Trent but no one was teaching it. It was a novel idea when I was at Mass and the priests started talking about the gift of salvation not merited by works.

~The Council of Trent - Session 6~
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Salvation by being good was the norm for Catholics before Vatican II. Faith and grace were occasionally mentioned but they had nothing to do with the end result. Salvation was attained by good works; going to confession, abstaining from meat on Friday and not missing mass on Sunday

I’ve assumed you were sincere until this point, but now I question it. What you wrote above is completely false. All you have to do is read any and every pre-Vatican II Catechism and it will explain that salvation is attained by dying in the state of grace. Being good is part of it, since being good is necessary to remain in the state of grace, but the Church has never taught that we are saved by our works without grace.

These are not “good works”. “Good works” are the spiritual and corporeal works of mercy. Confession is the means by which a person who sinned regains the state of grace. If you win the lottery, going to the bank and cashing the check is not a “good work”. It is the way you collect your free money. The same is true with confession. Confession is not a good work, but the way you regain the free gift of grace.

Abstaining from meat on Friday is an act of obedience. From the very beginning God has commanded some sort of abstaining from food as a simple act of obedience. We see this with Adam and Eve in the Garden where they were told not to eat a certain food, and with the Jews during the Old Covenant who were forbidden from eating many foods. During the New Covenant we have a similar act of obedience - one that is very limited. It merely consists of abstaining from certain foods on certain days. Anyone who refuses to perform this simple act of obedience to God deserves what he gets.

If you followed all the rules and died before committing your next sin after confession you would go to heaven.

You mean, if you die in the state of grace you will go to heaven.

Salvation by works was settled in the Council of Trent but no one was teaching it. It was a novel idea when I was at Mass and the priests started talking about the gift of salvation not merited by works

~The Council of Trent - Session 6~
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

There you have it. That is the teaching of the Church. Show me one pre-Vatican II Catechims that taught anything different.

I actually remember another conversion you and I had on a similar topic where you were making the same sort of claims. You said “before Vatican II the Church taught such and such”. I took the time to look up and post quotes from the Baltimore Catechism (the one that was used up to Vatican II) to show that what you were saying was completely false and, if I remember, you completely ignored the quotes.

In my last post, I asked you for your best example of the Church changing its teaching… and this is what you came up with? You make the typical Protestant claim that the Church teaches salvation by works? Please. Surely you can do better than that.

Please provide a quote from a pre-Vatican II Catechism saying that we are saved by good works apart from grace.

 

[una_fides]

I didn’t see any mention of invincible ignorance in what you quoted before:

Here it flatly states that unless a man believe faithfully and firmly in Catholicism, he cannot be saved. Do you then claim that a Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim or a Buddhist believe firmly and faithfully in the Catholic religion? It is difficult to believe that Muslims believe firmly and faithfully in the Catholic religion. If they do, then I don’t understand why they would have the death penalty in some Muslim countries for those who convert to Catholicism?

If you read my other posts, I explain how that can be possible. There are actually two plausible explanations. First, as I earlier explained, someone who is presently invincibly ignorant yet following the dictates of his conscious (not committing sins) and has perfect charity, etc, for those few cases, God could send them an angel, infuse them with knowledge prior to death, or send them a missionary to instruct them in the truths of the Catholic faith that must be believed for salvation such as concerning the incarnation, etc. Also keep in mind that a man is not bound to know all the truths of the Catholic faith and if he is invincibly ignorant of any teaching of the Church then if he does not believe it he will not be held accountable before God. The second explanation is that if someone is invincibly ignorant concerning all the truths of the faith, that God would not require an explicit faith or even a conscious implicit faith but an unconscious implicit faith could suffice if animated by perfect charity. In this case, the person could be considered to have believed the Catholic faith if it was made known to him or one could also read the papal statement as being absolutely true but not explaining the possibility for these few souls that God could save despite their ignorance. There have been other papal statements that include both the firm stance that outside of the Church and outside of this faith there is no salvation but that God also the perfect judge of hearts would not let anyone perish because of his ignorance, which was in no way his fault. Those outside the Church would be justly condemned for the sins they committed just as all those outside the ark perished in the flood. However, we are not ruling out the possibility that God could save such people by placing them in the ark through baptism of desire.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Baltimore Catechism:

Question 9, What must we do to save our soul?

Answer: To save our souls we must worship God by faith, hope, and charity; that is, we must believe in Him, hope in Him, and love Him with all our heart.

 

[una_fides]

As the Church travels through history the hierarchy becomes more and more worldly minded than Peter, the apostles and the early church fathers. The Church today neglects instruction given by the apostles in the bible but when they interpret the scriptures the end result is an interpretation that makes them superior and blameless. This is Phariseeism. Now I know someone will quote a pope apologizing for wrongs that were committed in the past but to me that’s like when the tobacco companies told people to stop smoking after being sued. They did it because they had to, not because they wanted to.

The Church has and always will remain true to the teachings of Christ. Your argument above is concerning behavior not dogmas. You seem to be confusing the two. Someone can teach the truth but then go home and not live it out. In the same way, a pope could be extremely sinful but that sinfulness would not sever him from being pope and head of the Church nor would it negate Christ’s promises to keep him from teaching error when certain conditions are met. You are actually raising a lot of questions handled in the book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keeting. It is an amazing book that if you have not yet read, I suggest you pick up a copy or you can also read most of it free online through Google books. Another book I recommend is “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism” by Dave Armstrong. I actually used to be a Fundamentalist, and these were two of the many books that helped me a great deal in my understanding Catholicism and what the Church actually taught.

 

[una_fides]

Salvation by being good was the norm for Catholics before Vatican II. Faith and grace were occasionally mentioned but they had nothing to do with the end result. Salvation was attained by good works; going to confession, abstaining from meat on Friday and not missing mass on Sunday. If you followed all the rules and died before committing your next sin after confession you would go to heaven.

Salvation by works was settled in the Council of Trent but no one was teaching it. It was a novel idea when I was at Mass and the priests started talking about the gift of salvation not merited by works.

~The Council of Trent - Session 6~
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

How is confessing your sins a “good work”? I think you have been infected with a protestant idea of what the Bible means when it says “good works.” Scripture is referring to works of debt as if God owed you something for doing good things. You cannot earn your way to heaven or place God in a state where he owes you something in return. God freely gives his gifts, and these gifts of grace require our cooperation. The means that God bestows grace to us is through the sacraments. The definition of a sacrament is “an outward sign instituted by Christ to give us grace.” When we go to confession, God reaches out and gives us grace through our confessing of our sins to him through his priest to whom Christ has given the power to forgive sins in his name through his ordination.

John 20:20 And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. 21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

The Father sent the Son to bring about the forgiveness of our sins. Christ hereby sent the apostles to bring about that same forgiveness through this special gift he was about to breathe on them. The breath of God is symbolic of the same breath mentioned in creation coming upon the waters that Christ now breathes on his disciples giving them the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive or retain sins. The apostles transmitted this astounding gift through ordination to their successors and that has continued for 2000 years until the present day.

 

[ron77nyc]

I’ve assumed you were sincere until this point, but now I question it. What you wrote above is completely false. All you have to do is read any and every pre-Vatican II Catechism and it will explain that salvation is attained by dying in the state of grace. Being good is part of it, since being good is necessary to remain in the state of grace, but the Church has never taught that we are saved by our works without grace.

All you have to do is talk to the average Catholic and you’ll know what they were taught. Many Catholics today are still trying to earn salvation if they care about it.

Abstaining from meat on Friday is an act of obedience. From the very beginning God has commanded some sort of abstaining from food as a simple act of obedience. We see this with Adam and Eve in the Garden where they were told not to eat a certain food, and with the Jews during the Old Covenant who were forbidden from eating many foods. During the New Covenant we have a similar act of obedience - one that is very limited. It merely consists of abstaining from certain foods on certain days. Anyone who refuses to perform this simple act of obedience to God deserves what he gets.

The apostle Paul writes this to observers of the Old Covenant:
Col 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

There you have it. That is the teaching of the Church. Show me one pre-Vatican II Catechims that taught anything different.

I don’t deny it was put in writing. That’s not what I’m talking about.

 

[ron77nyc]

The Church has and always will remain true to the teachings of Christ. Your argument above is concerning behavior not dogmas. You seem to be confusing the two.

I’m not saying the Church doesn’t have the truth. It’s actually buried under a pile of man made laws and other nonsense. They have it but it very rarely makes it to the spotlight. You asked me why I don’t trust the Church.

Why do you trust in the canon but do not trust the Church that compiled it, preserved it, and told the world that it was the Word of God?

 

[una_fides]

All you have to do is talk to the average Catholic and you’ll know what they were taught. Many Catholics today are still trying to earn salvation if they care about it.
…
I don’t deny it was put in writing. That’s not what I’m talking about.

How many “average Catholics” have you spoken to? And how many of them are actually educated in their faith and care what it teaches. There are over 1 billion Catholics alive in the world today and none of them on an individual level can determine the teachings of the Church. If an individual priest were to teach something untrue does that mean the Catholic faith is not true? You are thinking on too local of a level. The Church is Universal, which is what the word Catholic means. The key is being faithful to the teachings of the Church, which are not determined by popular opinion, by what individual rogue priests or bishops may be teaching, or by your impression of the faith. It is what it is. That’s why official documents are most important. If bishops or priests faith to heed to the true teachings of the Church, then they will be held accountable for their souls and any souls that are lost as a result of their negligence and deviation from the truth.

The following quote was taken during the Arian crisis in the Church when it was estimated the majority of her bishops were heretics that denied the divinity of Christ:
“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the true Church of Jesus Christ” (St. Athanasius AD 373).

 

[Malleus_01]

<<< You don’t really know about all other churches and how God guides them. >>>>

Mal: Actually , you are the one making the claim that GOD guides them. I never made that claim. As a Catholic I know that JESUS formed his ONE TRUE CHURCH and that on Pentecost Sunday he (And the Father through him depending on the passage you prefer lest I stir up the Orthodox ) sent the Holy Ghost to HIS Church to guide her He Established the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Priesthood. That the powers of the Priesthood only exist through that Sacrament. So you can name any false Church you want to name and whatever false service they claim honors GOD and it remains an invention of Man. Only GOD can establish a religion. And GOD , the Son , did.

 

[una_fides]

I’m not saying the Church doesn’t have the truth. It’s actually buried under a pile of man made laws and other nonsense. They have it but it very rarely makes it to the spotlight. You asked me why I don’t trust the Church.

First, why does the Church make laws such as mandatory fasting and abstinence from meat on certain days of the year? The purpose is for our growth in holiness. Christ fasted, the apostles fasted, the saints fasted. Scripture is full of verses on the importance of fasting and prayer. The Church mandates these things to increase awareness of the importance of certain days in her liturgical year in order that people will recognize why the day is important and fast for the sake of Christ not solely for the sake of the law. It seems that there are individual laws of the Church with which you seem to disagree, and I think that’s where this animosity towards the teachings of the Church has arisen. We must be very careful that we become not prideful to think that we know better than the Church, which Christ has placed over us and which Christ guides by his Holy Spirit. The Church’s laws teach us obedience and humility, which we need to acquire here and now or we place ourselves in a position where we are likely to spend a lot of extra time suffering in purgatory or even risk loosing eternal life due to our own pride and obstinacy.

You are obligated to be obedient to the Church, to those whom God has placed over you in authority.

Act 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1Th 5:12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them who labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you; 13 That you esteem them more abundantly in charity, for their work’s sake. Have peace with them.

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Joh 8:51 Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

All you have to do is talk to the average Catholic and you’ll know what they were taught. Many Catholics today are still trying to earn salvation if they care about it.

In order to retain the state of grace we must obey God. Obeying God takes effort. Could it be that your memory from before Vatican II (45 years ago) may be a little blurry? Could it be that all you remember from your Catechism is the part about being good (which is very importatant and necessary), and not the other part about grace? After all, this was over 45 years ago. I remember almost nothing from Church when I was a kid, and I grew up in the 70’s.

The apostle Paul writes this to observers of the Old Covenant:
Col 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

St. Paul is refering to the old law, which many Christians at the time were trying to incorporate in with Christianity. Remember, a majority of the first Catholics were former Jews who had been following the Jewish law all their lives. The law had been followed by their parents and grandparents for hundreds of years. Their consciences were formed based on this law, in such a way that it was considered a sin to violate any of its precepts. Therefore, as would be expected, the tendency was to incorporate the “works of the law” in with the Christian religion. In the quote you provided, St. Paul is addressing this very thing by telling them that the precepts of the old law are null and void. However, it does not follow that just because the dietary laws of the Old Covenant are null and void, that the New Law would not have prescribed days of fasting. And, in fact, the Church has had prescribed days of fast since the very beginning.

I don’t deny it was put in writing. That’s not what I’m talking about.

But you are going off your memory from 45+ years ago. Just because they may have emphasized the necessity of being good (and if they were a good Catechism teacher they would have), it does not mean you were not also taught the rest of the Catechism.

 

[ron77nyc]

You are thinking on too local of a level.

It’s not a local problem. Protestant missionaries, TV evangelists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses etc. have a field day in Catholic countries because most Catholics have never understood their own faith. Do you think Pope Leo X would have been able to sell indulgences on such a large scale if Catholics had been taught the truth about salvation?

 

[ron77nyc]

In order to retain the state of grace we must obey God. Obeying God takes effort. Could it be that your memory from before Vatican II (45 years ago) may be a little blurry? Could it be that all you remember from your Catechism is the part about being good (which is very importatant and necessary), and not the other part about grace?

No

I actually used to be a Fundamentalist

I actually used to be a good Catholic.