New poll confirms widespread dissent from Church moral teachings among US Catholics [CC]

[ComplineSanFran]

why is a pro-gay “Anglican” on this site? you have to wonder.

Well, I am an Anglican and I am on this site to listen and learn what one community of Roman Catholics think and believe. I want to understand how to have dialogue with this community, since I teach a lot of Catholics. I’m not so much interested in waving a flag of liberalism - or whatever one calls it - but rather in being able to speak my own beliefs with respect in that dialogue.

I’m also keen on reading what learned people have to say here - like Contarini, GKC, Melzerboy to name a few. You have some extremely intelligent posters. (LOL. I just noticed that not one of those three I mentioned is RC. Oh well.)

So Christine, am I not welcome?

 

[JimG]

A couple of resources on Dei Verbum:

Vatican II 40 Years Later: Dei Verbum

The Understanding of Revelation in Dei Verbum

It does not mean that doctrine has become unreliably fluid.

 

[Mark121359]

So how would you classify those who were baptized Catholic and sometimes attend mass whole disagreeing with certain church beliefs?

I’d classify them similar to what this man thinks;

"Half-hearted Catholics – those who believe only some of the Church’s teachings – aren’t really Catholics at all. They may call themselves Catholic, but they have one foot out the door.” ~Pope Francis~

Peace, Mark

 

[Jeanne_S]

I’d classify them similar to what this man thinks;

Peace, Mark

Yep!

 

[Thomas_White]

A couple of resources on Dei Verbum:

Vatican II 40 Years Later: Dei Verbum

The Understanding of Revelation in Dei Verbum

It does not mean that doctrine has become unreliably fluid.

Yes, and no one said it has. Dei Verbum says what it says, and what it says means something: “the Church moves constantly forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulness in her.”

Suffice it to say, we are not there yet. The error is to believe we are. In the same way, we live in the temporal world of time and Becoming where there is a continual process of change, and this process will also continue until the end of time. It is not easily expressed in words, but it seems to me these two things are not unrelated when the full revelation will not be revealed until the end of time.

Peace

 

[JimG]

Yes, and no one said it has. Dei Verbum says what it says, and what it says means something: “the Church moves constantly forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulness in her.”

Suffice it to say, we are not there yet. The error is to believe we are. In the same way, we live in the temporal world of time and Becoming where there is a continual process of change, and this process will also continue until the end of time. It is not easily expressed in words, but it seems to me these two things are not unrelated when the full revelation will not be revealed until the end of time.

Peace

I do not think that the idea of “continuing revelation” is taught by Dei Verbum. I think rather that it concerns increasing understanding of divine revelation. Thus, for example, Jesus did not give a scholastic definition of the Trinity. The Church knew what it believed, but the understanding of the fullness of the doctrine increased over time, guided by the Holy Spirit, and confirmed by the magisterium. It did not change or contradict itself.

Doctrinal understanding can grow, but it does not contradict prior revelation. One does not expect 180 degree changes or contradictions of prior teachings.

 

[Thomas_White]

I do not think that the idea of “continuing revelation” is taught by Dei Verbum. I think rather that it concerns increasing understanding of divine revelation. Thus, for example, Jesus did not give a scholastic definition of the Trinity. The Church knew what it believed, but the understanding of the fullness of the doctrine increased over time, guided by the Holy Spirit, and confirmed by the magisterium. It did not change or contradict itself.

Doctrinal understanding can grow, but it does not contradict prior revelation. One does not expect 180 degree changes or contradictions of prior teachings.

No, one does not expect it. But consider #846-848 of the CCC. Having attended Catholic schools for twelve years prior to Vatican II, I can assure you that this section of the CCC represents a significant change–180 degrees actually–from the way Pope Pius IX promulgated it.

 

[JimG]

No, one does not expect it. But consider #846-848 of the CCC. Having attended Catholic schools for twelve years prior to Vatican II, I can assure you that this section of the CCC represents a significant change–180 degrees actually–from the way Pope Pius IX promulgated it.

Well, I attended Catholic school prior to Vatican II, and it did not seem like a big change to me. “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation,” was not presented to me as a sentence of hell for non Catholics. It remains a doctrine, but we understand it in a more positive form–that whoever is saved, is saved through the Catholic Church, whether a formal member of it or not. No doubt there has been a better understanding of its meaning. Doctrine remains; understanding improves.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Ok. That makes it very black and white. I’d like to hear from people in other situations what their identifications might be.

I’m one of many who are in another situation. And my identifications simply begin with what the Catholic Church teaches. A bishop once explained to me someone baptized in a Catholic Church is a Catholic. There may be a distinction he said between practicing and non practicing. But the only specifics he got into was if for instance a Catholic did not attend Mass, rejected Transubstantiation and was pro choice, they indeed would be a Catholic though perhaps non practicing. That’s 3. I don’t know what about if only 2 of those.

I would say to be practicing there would be Mass attendance involved and receiving the Sacraments one is able to receive.

Now as for myself, I claim non practicing. But I no longer attend Catholic Mass or receive Sacraments. My faith in God however has never been stronger. And if I were to ever become part of another community, I might claim it’s title although the Catholic Church would still claim me based on my Baptism.

But beyond that I don’t have a whole long list. Why would I? I have enough of my own faith and salvation and planks in my own eyes to work on and to occupy myself. Than to start labeling others with a long list of labels.

Is attending weekly practicing and yet someone faithfully attending every other wk or monthly not?

Who am I to judge?

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I’m one of many who are in another situation. And my identifications simply begin with what the Catholic Church teaches. A bishop once explained to me someone baptized in a Catholic Church is a Catholic. There may be a distinction he said between practicing and non practicing. But the only specifics he got into was if for instance a Catholic did not attend Mass, rejected Transubstantiation and was pro choice, they indeed would be a Catholic though perhaps non practicing.

I would say there would be Mass attendance involved and receiving the Sacraments one is able to receive.

Now as for myself, I claim non practicing. But I no longer attend Catholic Mass or receive Sacraments. My faith in God however has never been stronger. And if I were to ever become part of another community, I might claim it’s title although the Catholic Church would still claim me based on my Baptism.

But beyond that I don’t have a whole long list. Why would I? Is attending weekly practicing and yet someone faithfully attending every other wk not?

Who am I to judge?

Thank you for that, Sy. Your response made me think. What are all the criteria for being a viable person of faith? A Catholic. We have been talking about practicing or not practicing. You bring up the example of attending Mass. Once a week? Every other week? What’s the cut off line for determining whether you are considered ‘good’ or not?

What about practices such as praying at home? Is that on the list of criteria?

Do you do good works? Give your money to Catholic causes? Volunteer at the parish’s food pantry? What makes you a good Catholic in this category?

People here keep talking about beliefs. You must believe what the Church teaches in order to be in good standing. Where’s that check list? Is there a top ten? Transubstantiation. OK. Church authority. OK. No abortion. Really? That’s in the top ten? What about the Incarnation? Resurrection?

But then there’s the cultural Catholic. People who were born and raised in the faith and consider themselves Catholic to the core, but very seldom do anything about it.

What I am trying to understand here is, who is making out the check list, determining who’s a good Catholic and who is not?

And why is it so important?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thank you for that, Sy. Your response made me think. What are all the criteria for being a viable person of faith? A Catholic. We have been talking about practicing or not practicing. You bring up the example of attending Mass. Once a week? Every other week? What’s the cut off line for determining whether you are considered ‘good’ or not?

What about practices such as praying at home? Is that on the list of criteria?

Do you do good works? Give your money to Catholic causes? Volunteer at the parish’s food pantry? What makes you a good Catholic in this category?

People here keep talking about beliefs. You must believe what the Church teaches in order to be in good standing. Where’s that check list? Is there a top ten? Transubstantiation. OK. Church authority. OK. No abortion. Really? That’s in the top ten? What about the Incarnation? Resurrection?

But then there’s the cultural Catholic. People who were born and raised in the faith and consider themselves Catholic to the core, but very seldom do anything about it.

What I am trying to understand here is, who is making out the check list, determining who’s a good Catholic and who is not?

And why is it so important?

Well that’s just the thing. I don’t know that there is an official checklist, top 10 or otherwise beyond people’s opinions. All good questions you ask though. But I only know I’m going to try not to be the one making the determination. I’m not God. I haven’t reached perfection. Who has? I have my own self and planks in my own eyes to concern myself with rather than to start making a long list to label others. What was it Jesus said about seeing the mote in another’s eye?

 

[Thomas_White]

Well, I attended Catholic school prior to Vatican II, and it did not seem like a big change to me. “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation,” was not presented to me as a sentence of hell for non Catholics. It remains a doctrine, but we understand it in a more positive form–that whoever is saved, is saved through the Catholic Church, whether a formal member of it or not. No doubt there has been a better understanding of its meaning. Doctrine remains; understanding improves.

In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9, 1854, Pope Pius IX said the following:

“We must hold as of the faith, that outside of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord.”

This is precisely how I recall the doctrine “Out the Church there is no Savation” was taught prior to Vatican II, and it was literal. I could not be persuaded otherwise. Without question this doctrine has changed. It could be said its understanding has advanced, but it would entail some rather suspect loqutions.

 

[Tomdstone]

In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9, 1854, Pope Pius IX said the following:

“We must hold as of the faith, that outside of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord.”

This is precisely how I recall the doctrine “Out the Church there is no Savation” was taught prior to Vatican II, and it was literal. I could not be persuaded otherwise. Without question this doctrine has changed. It could be said its understanding has advanced, but it would entail some rather suspect loqutions.

It does look like this teaching has been changed. For example, we read the following:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

[ProVobis]

Didn’t a Pope assign a committee the task of determining whether or not the teaching on ABC could be changed? If the teaching on ABC could not be changed, what was the purpose of calling the committee?

Maybe the better question would be why the Pope did wait so long after he made the profound statement in his Populorum Progressio concerning using one’s “conscience” in such matters and priests and bishops were already advising accordingly.

 

[commenter]

Maybe the better question would be why the Pope did wait so long after he made the profound statement in his Populorum Progressio concerning using one’s “conscience” in such matters and priests and bishops were already advising accordingly.

Christian teaching, and the Natural Law, had already been proclaimed many times by previous popes. They were reaffirmed by his predecessor, and at Vatican II, after
the oral contraceptive had been developed. It is reasonable that Pope Paul VI expected those reaffirmations (the ink was still damp) to have been read.

 

[commenter]

In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9, 1854, Pope Pius IX said the following:

“We must hold as of the faith, that outside of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord.”

This is precisely how I recall the doctrine “Out the Church there is no Savation” was taught prior to Vatican II, and it was literal. I could not be persuaded otherwise. Without question this doctrine has changed. It could be said its understanding has advanced, but it would entail some rather suspect loqutions.

No part of that statement has been repealed. The Church still teaches that since the Ascension the Catholic Church is the means God chose. Keep in mind even before Vatican II the Church recognized Baptisms by other communions, and preached Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire for those who never fully heard of Christ.

Even before the Council, the Church taught that many are saved through the Church, who don’t recognize the Catholic Church. This is obvious with those who live according to the Christ they found in their New Testament, but who don’t make any connection from the NT canon to the Church Magisterium. Of course they are saved! The Church taught, and still teaches, that all people are affected by the Mass.

I went to Catholic schools before the council too. Nothing in my textbooks taught that non-Catholics automatically go to Hell. Maybe your interpretation was not exactly, or went beyond, what the Church taught.

At Vatican II, and since then, the Church has looked more positively at non-Catholic Christian communions themselves, and the good work they do. That is a clarification, but not a subtraction from Catholic dogma.

 

[JimG]

In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9, 1854, Pope Pius IX said the following:

“We must hold as of the faith, that outside of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord.”

This is precisely how I recall the doctrine “Out the Church there is no Savation” was taught prior to Vatican II, and it was literal. I could not be persuaded otherwise. Without question this doctrine has changed. It could be said its understanding has advanced, but it would entail some rather suspect loqutions.

Yes, the allocution is quite accurate, and note that in it the pope stated that we must recognize with certainty that those in invincible ignorance of the true religion are not guilty. No one is consigned to hell. Even at an early age I recognized that a lot of people did not accept the Catholic Church as the true religion. No one can judge another’s invincible ignorance.

 

[Thomas_White]

Christian teaching, and the Natural Law, had already been proclaimed many times by previous popes. They were reaffirmed by his predecessor, and at Vatican II, after
the oral contraceptive had been developed. It is reasonable that Pope Paul VI expected those reaffirmations (the ink was still damp) to have been read.

Pope Pius IX promulgated the encyclical Casti Connubii in 1930, reaffirming Catholic teaching on artificial birth control. During Vatican II, ABC was again discussed, and Pope Paul VI appointed a commission to study the question. The commission recommended a change in Catholic doctrine. The pope set the question aside, and nothing more was done during the council. Many anticipated a change. That the doctrine could be changed was not even a question.

It was not until 1968 when Pope Paul VI promulgated the encyclical Humanae Vitae. It created an uproar within the Church, with even some Bishops saying the encyclical could be ignored. The several sources I’ve read all say the same thing: Pope Paul VI was reluctant to change the doctrine about ABC, fearing that doing so would set a precedent and weaken papal authority for future popes. It has also been argued that it was Humanae Vitae, and not Vatican II itself, that resulted in the major crisis in the Church following Vatican II. A number of Catholic theologians were beside themselves, having both anticipated and predicted a change in the doctrine. There were major consequences for it.

During Vatican I, Pope Pius IX essentially declared that he (and future popes) were infallible with respect to the teaching of faith and morals. At that time, there was also an uproar. Cardinal Newman was one of many prominent Catholics who strongly opposed this doctrine, and he did so until he was silenced. There is an ancient Church teaching known as the Doctrine of Reception. It provides that for a doctrine to be legitimate, it must be accepted by the faithful. This obviously could have been an issue with respect to Humae Vitae, but this Catholic doctrine had died a slow death over the centuries.

The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum was in part a response to what was by Vatican II perceived by many as a difficulty in that it gave sole and infallible authority, in perpetuity, in these matters to one person. With the promulgation of Dei Verbum, doctrine and papal authority were no longer invincible. However, for whatever reasons, this dogma is scarcely mentioned.

 

[JimG]

In reaffirming the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control, Paul VI was indeed protected by the Holy Spirit. He reaffirmed the teaching which had been taught for nearly 2000 years and which was taught by all the Protestant reformers and every Protestant denomination from the start of the Reformation up until 1930.

Had the Church changed that teaching, it would now have to assume responsibility for all of the results of the sexual revolution, including same sex marriage.

For a discussion of the effects resulting from the detachment of sex from childbearing, see “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” by Mary Eberstadt.

 

[Usige]

Maybe the better question would be why the Pope did wait so long after he made the profound statement in his Populorum Progressio concerning using one’s “conscience” in such matters and priests and bishops were already advising accordingly.

Pope Paul VI was referring to parents using their own conscience to determine the number of children they would have within the bounds of moral dictates. There is nothing I can see in Populorum Progressio that said the method of limiting family size was a matter of personal conscience.