Catholics Are More Progressive Than The Vatican, And Almost Everyone Else

[ProVobis]

No, I wasn’t joking. On the Vatican website where the Relatio is posted, it says right at the top that it is an “Unofficial translation.”

Maybe I’m misreading what the excerpt from the article is referring to by “official English translation.” For some reason, I’m not able to open the link in the OP to read the whole article.

You’re not misreading it. There’s probably no one assigned to give an “official” translation from Italian to English. And if it’s not in Latin, how do we compare this to other Church documents as to the force of law? I believe we’re in total confusion territory.

 

[Joe_5859]

You’re not misreading it. There’s probably no one assigned to give an “official” translation from Italian to English. And if it’s not in Latin, how do we compare this to other Church documents as to the force of law? I believe we’re in total confusion territory.

When it comes to other documents (like the Catechism, for example) there are official English translations. They have people go over it more thoroughly to make sure everything is being communicated clearly through the translation.

But this was basically just an interim discussion document. So I can understand them not bothering with getting it all fully polished. Part of me thinks they did not foresee how much press that document would generate.

 

[ProVobis]

When it comes to other documents (like the Catechism, for example) there are official English translations. They have people go over it more thoroughly to make sure everything is being communicated clearly through the translation.

Speaking of the Catechism, I have this feeling the English “language” within it will be undergoing some changes a year from now, if not sooner.

 

[Della]

I really appreciated your point by point rebuttal, that said things in a much kinder way than I probably would have.

Rebuttal of my post? That’s was fine and is fine. I posted what I see are some of the problems–my list was not meant to be authortative (I’m not the pope) nor exhaustive. I appreciated the additions/concerns made by others.

One point I would like to add to the general conversation is this: we should be very careful when we assert that there can never be any kind of ‘change’ to what the church teaches.

Before Vatican II, there were good Catholics who said the same thing. After Vatican II many of the same Catholics abandoned the church because they believed that change and error had indeed crept into the church.

“Doctrine cannot change” is a standard maxim, but when we put the saying under the microscope, it falls apart, because–what IS “change?”

Usually when we say “doctrine can’t change,” we really mean that the core truth of the gospel will not change, and that is good and right and true. But some people take “doctrine can’t change” to mean that the way doctrine is formulated, expressed, taught, or implemented can never change, either–which is false. As our understanding of doctrine evolves with our collective experiences, we often come to see new possibilities and directions that we had not before considered–such as Chaput’s recent suggestion that we decouple civil and sacramental marriage. That is a potential “change” to the way sacramental doctrine is applied, and it is only one recent example.

I hope you noted that no one has said that how Church teaching is applied doesn’t change or that doctrine does not develop. Such things do change as the Church encounters cultures and changes in the norms of societies. It is the core teaching that cannot and does not change, as you cited. We can see how Our Lord adapted what the Jews of his day understood to lead them to a deeper understanding of God’s Law. The Church does the same thing, of course.

Telling people that change can never happen is setting them up for disappointment.

I think telling them that the sins they are committing will no longer be considered sins will lead people to be disappointed, and surely that is the crux of the issue.

Great conversation taking place here, thanks for letting me be a part–I joined the Catholic Church, in part, because I realized that the Church was not the backwards conservative sinkhole that I had been led to think. The Catholic Church has a bright future, and I feel blessed to be a part of the Church.

I became a Catholic for the same reason. I was allowed to think for myself. No one called me “unspiritual” for not being lock-step with the culture of the sect in which I had been a member. The difference is that the Church’s core teachings, it’s doctrine/dogma are unchanging–because it is Christ’s teachings, not those of men. Thus they free us and nuture us rather than chaining us to mere man’s opinions. Christ’s teachings are such a great gift we cannot toss them aside merely to accommodate some who can’t/won’t believe that conforming oneself to the mind of Christ is the best thing they could do, rather than clinging to their own ideas or, in some cases, their pride.

 

[Sy_Noe]

God can and does surprise us but people never do–human beings have always wanted to excuse themselves for one reason or another.

The Church’s teachings cannot and will not change because they are Christ’s teachings not men’s.

I’ve been assured on CAF that if allowing Communion to the divorced and remarried is something Pope Francis wants, he can recommend it following next yr’s synod regardless of what the bishops do and this would be binding. Perhaps then this will be one of God’s surprises.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12429502&postcount=82

 

[Della]

I’ve been assured on CAF that if allowing Communion to the divorced and remarried is something Pope Francis wants, he can recommend it following next yr’s synod regardless of what the bishops do and this would be binding. Perhaps then this will be one of God;s surprises.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12429502&postcount=82

All he addressed is the pope’s authority. It was not an endorsement of that position. No, divorced and remarried people who have not obtained an annulment and are living together having conjugal relations, will not be allowed to receive communion.

The only change in approach to this issue I can see coming from the Synod is this: The pope may decide that if divorced and remaried couples are living as brother and sister and are on their way to getting an annulment, the pope may decide (may be being the operative phrase–and I’m only guessing) to allow to such couples to receive communion, as deternined by their local pastors: bishops or perhaps priests. The same for converts from Protestant communions who had a very different understanding of divorce, and other such cases. We shall see. Now, that would be instances of applying Church teaching as is best for those concerned.

Why people want to skirt this teaching is for them to ponder. Perhaps they don’t want the bother of an annulment or getting one is hard where they live, and so on. It’s a tough situation, no one is denying that. Why people get into such situations is varied, but the main fault lies in their not being properly catechised. Perhaps they didn’t take it seriously until they’d gotten themselves into a mess. It takes patience and fortitude to rectify such situations–in a word it takes self-control, which many people have never seriously practiced because they were never taught to do it. Anyway, I feel for them and pray for them. I hope and pray they find the grace to do what is best because only God’s grace will get them through such dilemmas.

 

[edwest2]

I really appreciated your point by point rebuttal, that said things in a much kinder way than I probably would have.

One point I would like to add to the general conversation is this: we should be very careful when we assert that there can never be any kind of ‘change’ to what the church teaches.

Before Vatican II, there were good Catholics who said the same thing. After Vatican II many of the same Catholics abandoned the church because they believed that change and error had indeed crept into the church.

“Doctrine cannot change” is a standard maxim, but when we put the saying under the microscope, it falls apart, because–what IS “change?”

Usually when we say “doctrine can’t change,” we really mean that the core truth of the gospel will not change, and that is good and right and true. But some people take “doctrine can’t change” to mean that the way doctrine is formulated, expressed, taught, or implemented can never change, either–which is false. As our understanding of doctrine evolves with our collective experiences, we often come to see new possibilities and directions that we had not before considered–such as Chaput’s recent suggestion that we decouple civil and sacramental marriage. That is a potential “change” to the way sacramental doctrine is applied, and it is only one recent example.

Telling people that change can never happen is setting them up for disappointment.

Great conversation taking place here, thanks for letting me be a part–I joined the Catholic Church, in part, because I realized that the Church was not the backwards conservative sinkhole that I had been led to think. The Catholic Church has a bright future, and I feel blessed to be a part of the Church.

The rumor that Vatican II did anything wrong or caused anything bad is totally false. I was there before and after Vatican II and did not love God less after. Outsiders and dissidents in the Church worked very hard to lead Catholics on the wrong path and to damage the Church from within.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Joe_5859]

Speaking of the Catechism, I have this feeling the English “language” within it will be undergoing some changes a year from now, if not sooner.

How come? If they didn’t revise it in light of the new translation of the missal, I doubt anything is going to be revised with regards to a synod that is really only half finished.

 

[ProVobis]

How come? If they didn’t revise it in light of the new translation of the missal, I doubt anything is going to be revised with regards to a synod that is really only half finished.

From the sounds of it, quite a few are still offended by the CCC “disordered” language among other things, never mind what the full synod will bring. Just sayin…

 

[1newcatholic]

The rumor that Vatican II did anything wrong or caused anything bad is totally false. I was there before and after Vatican II and did not love God less after. Outsiders and dissidents in the Church worked very hard to lead Catholics on the wrong path and to damage the Church from within.

Peace,
Ed

This is probably a subject for a different thread, or maybe even for a PM, but I was not there for Vatican II, and I would like to understand better what you mean.

 

[RGCheek]

We have a few at the office. They are just private people. No talk about shielding themselves from possible office debauchery. Office parties are usually Christmas or when someone retires. Alcohol is not involved.

Yes, just because someone minds their own business it does not mean that they are trying to insulate themselves from the world, but people who do often take the role of the private person who doesn’t do the social life at work,; he has plenty with his friends and family and with members of his church.

How does one shop…hire an agent to purchase a home…a car…see a movie…attend a town festival. … geez louise…do you hide from everything. …is the human race that bad one has to live in cave? Have you ever been to a Catholic wedding reception or Irish wake?

Where do you get this bizarre wacko set of ideas? I never said anything of the sort.

I am talking about cultural and spiritual insulation, not economic or anything other than WHAT I STATED.

If you found out your co-worker is gay would you quit? If your new boss was gay would you quit?

Of course not; I have worked with dozens of gay co-workers, some of the exemplary employees.

None of this matters. You keep talking isolationist living…
you know you can be in this world and not of it.

Yea, I do and that is what I am recommending. ‘Not being of the world’ means to not let the world around you influence you faith, values, morals, spirituality or concepts of right and wrong.

Yet you seem insistent that I am talking about something else entirely and build straw man after straw man in response to my posts, but not to what I actually state.

Why is that?

 

[RGCheek]

It’s true that once people think that Church teaching is going to change–to allow them to have their cake and eat it too, it’s going to be hard to get them to accept the truth. It’s going to take generations to amend the situation, as I stated. It’s not impossible–it’s just hard. As my mother always told me when I had a difficult chore to do, “It’s better to start right now so you’ll have it done sooner rather than later.” The correction has to start now.

I believe the Synod will be the catalyst that will get peoples’ allegiances sorted out, because they are going to have to make a choice to stay with the Church or to leave when they see they aren’t going to get what they want.

Yes I fear a schism might result if wiser heads don’t run things.

I do suspect that the Pope is encouraging the supposed gay underground at the Vatican to come on out, that he is on there side and will then be able to deal with them in a charitable way, sort of a Catholic version of Mao’s ‘Let a thousand Flowers Bloom’.

I don’t know, obviously, but this is how organizations with a purpose sometimes deal with a large scale infiltration by those with exterior agendas.

That seems to be the case here, and Benedicts embrace of Francis suggest that Francis is a wise and cunning Pope, not to be taken lightly.