Improperly Catechised

[ProVobis]

I agree with you on this. I was simply saying that we are not saved by catechism but by grace. In the way it is presented in the post you could argue that with proper catechism you earn salvation. Once catechized always saved!

That brings back to an old argument, does someone ignorant have the best chance at salvation?

 

[Cristiano]

That brings back to an old argument, does someone ignorant have the best chance at salvation?

Maybe they do but I doubt it. Even if it were true the added problem is that we have an obligation to educate them and if we fail we are accountable for it. I think that withholding what was revealed to us kinda of goes against God’s will.I do not want to face the scenario where I go to hell because I chose not to catechize someone, while that someone goes to heaven. I would like to see the both of us in heaven.

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe they do but I doubt it. Even if it were true the added problem is that we have an obligation to educate them and if we fail we are accountable for it. I think that withholding what was revealed to us kinda of goes against God’s will.

But as one of the posters noted above, you can’t educate someone who’s not willing to learn. So why should the burden fall on you in that case?

 

[Cristiano]

But as one of the posters noted above, you can’t educate someone who’s not willing to learn. So why should the burden fall on you in that case?

That is the case of vincible and willfully chosen ignorance. That to me is an express ticket to hell. We also must make sure that we understand that proper catechesis starts with role modeling.

 

[ProVobis]

That is the case of vincible and willfully chosen ignorance.

Then again maybe the person thinks he knows more than you and that you’re the one who is improperly catechised.

 

[Cristiano]

Then again maybe the person thinks he knows more than you and that you’re the one who is improperly catechised.

Maybe he thinks that, but the individual is making a clear choice and he is going to be held accountable for it. There could be diminished culpability if the choice is made following the dictates of the conscience, but he better make sure that he is really following the dictates of a malformed conscience rather than some other utilitarian self-serving interest.

I also think that the above statement applies differently to non-Christians, protestants, and Catholics. The more you know that you should know the more you are accountable.

 

[TedDC]

there is a third option
there are many people who were offered excellent catechesis in Catholic school or parish programs but did not pay attention or respond to the gift, or simply did not want to learn.

I was definitely one of those, and recently decided to learn more about the Church’s teachings which I had understood only superficially, at best. But when I did learn more about them, I discovered that I simply didn’t believe a lot of them! So I’m still out of the Church and have no interest in returning, but now it’s an informed decision.

 

[Jehoshua]

Are you saying that properly catechized people loose their free will? Only through loss of free will you can ensure that properly catechized people will accept all the teachings of the Church. There are millions of people in this country that have been properly instructed on financial basics but they still get in debt because they feel good in spending money that they do not have. Knowledge and reason do not ensure compliance.

I think that you are quite confused between the concept of theological emphasis and teaching of the Church. Just look at the Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics. In this case the theological emphasis can be quite different but the acceptance and love for the teachings of the Church is the same. Theology is not a teaching, it could go against the teaching and that would be heretical thinking.

Your feelings are your feelings but when you tell a person that is sinful because of pride you insult them. You could prove them wrong in their thinking with a logical argumentation but I do not see that happening. Hiding behind the words “in my opinion” after calling someone prideful does not make things better.

No I am not saying anything of the sort, i am saying that to hold a divergent teaching (say that gay marriage is right) and to say that that person had correct catechesis in holding that teaching to be correct is inherently incorrect, because to be properly catechised means to be taught the authentic teachings of the church.

Perhaps in regards to my second statement i was a bit vague and obtuse, i can accept that especially considering that the issue of people supporting women priets etc etc is one in which I feel rather strongly about. My intention in that comment was in regards to the comment saying the church now emphasised love and in the context of the “liberal” catholic crowd. In that regard i would disagree that the theological emphasis had changed, because as i see it the comment implied a distinct separation of teaching pre and post VII and supported a teaching that was contrary to the Church, thus in this context the change in theological emphasis as i saw it mentioned in the post of the person i originally responded too would imply a change in the unchangeable dogma of the Church. Although i accede to the fact that i elucidated that less than adequately and gave a less than adequate impression of my intention.

In regards to my final statement, being “nice” is not acceptable in my opinion, if there is a problem you must tell it as it is and not hide behind some sort of invisible wall and idea that causing offense is wrong. Should we just sit around in our little catholic ghetto and simply be “nice” to people? We’d never evangelise since we could “offend” people, we could never question religions in error since that wouldn’t be “nice”. This attitude of simply being “nice” to people is i think wrong, the truth must be told, and one should be able to confidently assert their beliefs and to question the cause of error (of course being open to ones own faults). In this case i indeed stated my opinion that i thought the whole liberal view and the individual in questions adherance heretical views is due to pride. I merely stated in the beginning that I can not ever be certain of that since i don;t know the person on a personal basis and to assume i do know the impetus behind their views would be wrong.

 

[Cristiano]

…In regards to my final statement, being “nice” is not acceptable in my opinion, if there is a problem you must tell it as it is and not hide behind some sort of invisible wall and idea that causing offense is wrong. Should we just sit around in our little catholic ghetto and simply be “nice” to people? We’d never evangelise since we could “offend” people, we could never question religions in error since that wouldn’t be “nice”. This attitude of simply being “nice” to people is i think wrong, the truth must be told, and one should be able to confidently assert their beliefs and to question the cause of error (of course being open to ones own faults). In this case i indeed stated my opinion that i thought the whole liberal view and the individual in questions adherance heretical views is due to pride. I merely stated in the beginning that I can not ever be certain of that since i don;t know the person on a personal basis and to assume i do know the impetus behind their views would be wrong.

I was not stating the fact that someone must be nice, I do not like the concept of being nice at any cost. I was simply stating that we should avoid being rude. The two things are not the same. A person can avoid being rude by formally addressing the facts and with love while not assigning sin to a specific individual. Such a process would be called caritas in veritas. People should not address heretical views in terms of their source (e.g. pride) but on their own lack of merit. A lot of people do supposedly right things out of pride and that is equally bad.

 

[wgriff1066]

finally, i heard this a couple of times and * thought it was only me, I recently enrolled in an RCIA coourse and after reading a few chapters of the new Catechism It hit me that I was woefully unprepared to face the world at all, as a Knowledgeable Catholic. /seems to me that Satan knew this also, So all he needed to do was to stand outside of a catholic High /school on graduation Day and just pluck us off one at a time. In looking back on my Catholic Schooling (twelve years worth, I now I can honestly say that I memorized the prays, thesacraments and i was an Alter Boy who knew the responses to the Latin Mass but did I understand what I was saying, Not at All.In Hindsight in the 50’s, 60’s, The Church was it’s own worst enemy. now at age 61 I am returning to the Catholic Faith after a Thirty year absence. I am so confused, Because so much has been added to the Faith by Vatican II, That is my belief for so many people keaving the Church. i am angry about how we were taught back then. What are we to do about the mistakes we made because we just didn’t understand what we should have been doing a long time ago…*

 

[Bbigam]

I know a young man who is 20 and is now discerning the priesthood who has shared about his terrible catechesis. He grew up Catholic, and only learned this past September what mortal sin is, and the need for confession when in a state of mortal sin before receiving Holy Communion. He had no idea because he’d never been taught. And you know who finally filled him in? A friend who was a very recent convert. Then, a few weeks ago, he and I filled in a 17 year old on the same stuff regarding confession and mortal sin. Both grew up in “good Catholic families.”

The exciting thing is that both of these young men took it very seriously, were shocked and upset about having missed out on such important doctrine, and have been getting really serious about the faith.

(The first young man also went to confession with his home parish priest, who apparently tried to talk him out of worrying about his mortal sins. Hmmm… He’s not going back to that confessor.)

I was blessed to have a great RCIA program that focused on teaching us very clearly the basics of Catholic teaching, on the Sacraments, sin, Christology, ecclesiology, etc.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Now, to an interesting question. Has anyone ever heard the term “needs to be re-catechised” because they were judged by someone to be too rigid in there Catholic beliefs ?

How is it possible to be ‘too rigid’ in one’s Catholic beliefs?

It’s either true or it isn’t. If you believe it to be true, you will obey and give yourself to it.

 

[crazzeto]

Yes, I believe many Catholics of my generation were improperly catechised and **under **catechised. For instance, one hour of CCD a week left enough time for us to memorize prayers and not much else. For the sacrament of Confirmation, I remember being asked by a nun to select a saint’s name to use - I picked a name that was not even a saint name because no one had ever bothered to discuss the saints with me! (And I was raised in a Catholic home!)

I am of the opinion that people in my age group (40’s) that were improperly catechised either shy away from passing on their faith or pass it on in a very loosey-goosey way. For example, I was told there is no longer a need to teach the 10 Commandments to CCD students because all they need to know is that they should love one another. If they love one another, then they would never break a commandment. Huh??

I have spent the last five years reading a great deal about the saints, early Church history, the catechism, etc in an attempt to “catch up” on all that was left out over the years. I have always loved the Catholic Church (despite not knowing anything about the nuts and bolts of it), but now I am *in love *with it! What an abyss of inspirational information I have fall into!

I have never rejected the teachings of the Catholic Church, thanks be to God.

I agree here, though under catechised I wouldn’t pin so much on Holy Mother Church as much as I would a complete loss of a Catholic Culture. I know at least in my case, my parents relied completely (almost) on the Church’s 1+hr a week CCD program to teach us everything about the faith… Think about that, maybe a bit over an hour a week from elementry school to middle school when I was confirmed. Outside of that, we did go to Church almost every weekend (no confession when we did miss), and that was the full extent of my catechisis. No wonder I knew nothing about the faith when I moved to NC about 5ish years ago and was put on the fast track to knowlege by the Lord.

I can’t speak for the quality of the education as I hardly remember it. I remember being introduced to the two species of the Eucharst (unconsectrated), I remember hating the wine, a film strip about St. Paul (who helped bring me back home, Patron of my original Home Parish) and choosing my confirmation name. That’s about as much as I really remember from it.

I’m determained to live the faith day in and day out for my children, so they will have more than I did. Including weekly family rosaries.

 

[crazzeto]

How is it possible to be ‘too rigid’ in one’s Catholic beliefs?

It’s either true or it isn’t. If you believe it to be true, you will obey and give yourself to it.

That… would be the devil disguised in modernism. As the Holy Father says, the devil would never dream of asking you to do anything dramatic, like shoot your spouse in the head… He knows most of us would never dream of it.

No, instead the Devil simply asks you to be reasnoble.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

People are always trashing Catholics for being ‘too rigid,’ but MANY other sects make it up as they go along, believing everything and nothing, bowing to the whims of the world.

You either accept that God is Truth or you don’t.