Ok. What does "poorly catechized" mean?

[rcwitness]

Well, honestly, your mom’s abuse by your dad and oppression/affliction from him and others, is a factor in things, for sure! I’m not trying to judge people all situations at all. But when parents cop out of their duty and privilege out of laziness, fear, shame, etc. it’s nobody else’s fault.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Not everyone has the same temperament, the same options, the same opportunities. You make it sound like it’s a level playing field and it isn’t. You still insulted my mother. You suck.

 

[rcwitness]

I think you need to re-read my original post #28 again. It was in no may insulting your mom, if she was trying to provide knowledge in the faith by example and prayers.

I am not sure why you think I was addressing your mom. Does she not think it’s a privilege and duty to instill faith values on her children? Has she not made sound efforts to ensure your education and no provide an example of a faithful woman? If so, I am NOT talking about her. I don’t even know your mother!

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Read your post as it follows mine. I said she obeyedwhen the school folder not to teach at home, pretty much abdicating her duties according what you followed it with.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

So, here’s the question: what does it mean – on a philosophical level, if you will – to say that a person is a member of a faith community but does not believe what that faith community teaches as its core beliefs?

It means that this person partially agrees and partially disagrees with some of what you call “core beliefs”. They may consider some other beliefs as “core” beliefs.

Two thoughts: first of all, what the ‘core beliefs’ of Catholicism are is not something that is up to personal discernment. They are what they are.

The Catholic perspective on disagreement with Church teachings is that one is not suppost to reject beliefs, but rather, given one’s belief that the Church teaches truth, that they are to attempt to come to belief in them, even as they have difficulties with some of them. It becomes a question of attitude and approach, rather than of rejection.

That’s the fun part: doctrine and dogma do not change. No doublethink required.

I see. Now where is a complete authoritative list of those doctrines and dogmas?

Man… you really are reading out of the atheist playbook, aren’t you?

The Catechism describes the beliefs of the Catholic Church. It’s authoritative.

Because for quite a long time the literal interpretation of Genesis was required.

You might be surprised to learn that, as early as Augustine, “literal interpretation of Genesis” wasn’t in play.

The concept of limbo was taken as mandatory to believe.

OK. You’re really working from a bad playbook. No, ‘limbo’ was never mandatory; it was a theological opinion (even if generally held), and never a doctrine.

There is today a “fight” about the ordination of women. Another one is the about the celibacy of priests. Dogma?

No. Priestly celibacy was never dogma (or doctrine); it’s a discipline.

What did the Church Lady say: “How conveeenient”.

It only looks ‘convenient’ when you misrepresent it… like you’re doing here.

 

[Gorgias]

Poor catechesis? Yeah, it’s a problem. But I wonder, if sometimes we tend to use this as an excuse for those who do things or have beliefs contrary to what the Church teaches. It is my belief that many Catholics know full well what the Church teaches, yet make a conscious, deliberate decision to defy her.

Perhaps. Yet, if you ask them “does the Church teach X”, the answer you generally get is “oh, no! We’re not held to believe that!”

 

[rcwitness]

You also have to give a hoot.

 

[Wesrock]

I also understand poor catechesis to mean people don’t know why the CC professes what it does, so they lack even a minimal of apologetics knowledge and find themselves unable to respond to objections about faith and practices that the Church has answers to, and (for some reason) conclude there’s no answer after a few resources fail them. This often goes hand-in-hand with not having a good understanding of a doctrine, and so have their misconceptions, when going into detail, are easily drawn out.

 

[Scowler]

Man… you really are reading out of the atheist playbook, aren’t you?

Actually, no I don’t. But if I were… what is your point?

The Catechism describes the beliefs of the Catholic Church. It’s authoritative.

Where in the catechism is that list?

No, ‘limbo’ was never mandatory; it was a theological opinion (even if generally held), and never a doctrine.

Maybe you are not familiar with the principle of ordinary magisterium. Look it up here: What Are Extraordinary Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium? - dummies especially this:

In other words, when the pope reinforces, reiterates, or restates the consistent teaching of his predecessors and of the bishops united with him around the world, that’s considered the Ordinary Magisterium and should be treated as infallible doctrine.

So, if a belief is held by the pope and the bishops - like the “literal interpretation of the bible”, “the Earth being the center of the universe”, the “limbo”, etc… then those were taught - infallibly! - by the ordinary magisterium… and YET they changed.

 

[rcwitness]

So, if a belief is held by the pope and the bishops - like the “literal interpretation of the bible”, “the Earth being the center of the universe”, the “limbo”, etc… then those were taught - infallibly! - by the ordinary magisterium… and YET they changed.

No. Matters of faith and morals which are Taught as Traditions and have come to us from the days of the Apostles who gave us both Public Revelation and the Deposit of Faith through our Lord, are Infallible and our assent required.

Those examples you listed have not been Taught in this manner. They were conclusions based on theological concepts of their time and one being separate from faith and morals altogether.

If you are trying to make the claim that certain teachings were once held as Infallible Doctrine and then changed, you should provide sources where they were taught in the capacity which you make this claim.

 

[Scowler]

Those examples you listed have not been Taught in this manner.

The literal interpretation of Genesis is most fundamental part of Christianity - with the doctrine of original sin. If there was no tree, no serpent, no fall, there would be no “need” for Jesus. You throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[rcwitness]

What are you trying to say? That the Catholic Church once taught something about “literal interpretation” and now teaches something different? Again, please use sources for your claim, so we can have a starting point.

To merely say “without a tree, serpent, a fall…” is not addressing the nature of those things. The nature is the significant part. We both agree those things are “real”, but in what sense are they real? Was there literally a snake which spoke a human language??? Is this what the Church Taught??? Is it necessary to believe that, or can it be that this discription of Moses was the best way to convey how Satan tempted Eve???

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Man… you really are reading out of the atheist playbook, aren’t you?

Actually, no I don’t. But if I were… what is your point?

Simple: your objections are old, tired, and follow a script.

The Catechism describes the beliefs of the Catholic Church. It’s authoritative.

Where in the catechism is that list?

I’m sorry – you asked for the teachings of the Church. If you want it in list format, then take notes. You can’t really be suggesting that the Catechism is ‘useless’ or ‘not authoritative’ simply because it’s not in the format you’d like it to be in… are you?

No, ‘limbo’ was never mandatory; it was a theological opinion (even if generally held), and never a doctrine.

Scowler:

Maybe you are not familiar with the principle of ordinary magisterium. Look it up here: What Are Extraordinary Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium? - dummies especially this:

In other words, when the pope reinforces, reiterates, or restates the consistent teaching of his predecessors and of the bishops united with him around the world, that’s considered the Ordinary Magisterium and should be treated as infallible doctrine.

So, if a belief is held by the pope and the bishops - like the “literal interpretation of the bible”, “the Earth being the center of the universe”, the “limbo”, etc… then those were taught - infallibly! - by the ordinary magisterium

In all charity… you’re not terribly good at this, ya know? Yes, you know what the ‘ordinary magisterium’ is. However, you haven’t demonstrated that these things were held “by the pope and all the bishops” in a manner that was “consistant, constant, and universal”. Rather, you just skip that step and simply point to the definition of the ordinary magisterium and assert that it is so. You recognize that you’ve missed a critical step, right?

Remember: the fact that some taught limbo (and that includes some theologians, who don’t have magisterial authority) doesn’t mean that it fits the definition of ‘ordinary magisterium’…!

 

[Scowler]

You recognize that you’ve missed a critical step, right?

No, I don’t think so. Maybe you mean that each and every pope and bishop must step up and loudly declare from the rooftops that a certain topic is declared “authoritatively”. It is sufficient if it is accepted by them. And to deny the literal interpretation of Genesis would have been a heresy, with the well-known consequences.

The denial of the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe cost Giordano Bruno his life.

 

[Scowler]

We both agree those things are “real”, but in what sense are they real?

There is only one way a thing can be “real”. By the way, I pressed the “like” button by accident. Unfortunately it cannot be undone.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

We both agree those things are “real”, but in what sense are they real?

There is only one way a thing can be “real”.

Says who… ???

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

What does “poorly catechized” mean.

Those Catholics such as my wife. She is a cradle Catholic. I am a convert. I tried to tell her that “Limbo” is not an “Official Teaching”. We argued about it for 30 years. Not until the Priest made a statement about it during an homily when the Vatican put out a statement about it did she cede I was “Correct”…She would not be a Scholarly type such as myself, she places a Priest to high on a Pedestal which is another example of being “poorly catechized”.

That is just two example of possibly hundreds.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Those Catholics such as my wife. She is a cradle Catholic. I am a convert. I tried to tell her that “Limbo” is not an “Official Teaching”. We argued about it for 30 years. Not until the Priest made a statement about it during an homily when the Vatican put out a statement about it did she cede I was “Correct”…She would not be a Scholarly type such as myself, she places a Priest to high on a Pedestal which is another example of being “poorly catechized”.

Um…first of all, it’s no sin to rely on your priest for your Catholic teaching. It’s a shame that some priests teach things contrary to the actual Catechism, but the important part is that someone is engaged enough with their faith to seek an answer, whether they ask a priest who has been specially trained, or look it up themselves in a book. The vast majority of Catholics are not scholars and rely on priests, deacons, other Catholic lay instructors from Scott Hahn right down to the local CCD teacher to be taught things.

Second, if you have another example of your wife’s alleged poor catechesis, you might want to use it. It’s true that Limbo was never an “official” Church doctrine, but it was a widely accepted traditional teaching of the Church, was taught in Catholic school and was part of the Baltimore Catechism, which was the main teaching resource for cradle Catholic kids for many decades. I’m pretty sure it was still being taught as of the late 70s when I was studying the Baltimore Catechism. See no. 632:

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm

It didn’t finally get done away with until Pope Benedict reigned.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2028721620070420

So your wife’s catechesis at the time on this subject was in line with what the vast majority of Catholics were learning. Blame this one on the Church for allowing an unofficial position to be taught in its own schools for decades.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

So your wife’s catechesis at the time on this subject was in line with what the vast majority of Catholics were learning. Blame this one on the Church for allowing an unofficial position to be taught in its own schools for decades.

And what they were learning was not correct. And the Baltimore Catechism was at a fault. She also believe Priestly Celibacy was a Dogma instead of a Discipline. I had to drag her to a meeting with our Priest just to clear that issue up. She did not speak to me for a month.

And believe me their are still a lot of Cradle Catholics at my church that still believe Limbo is a Dogma because they missed that Homily and don’t access any other sources of information outside the homily. These are the ones that are way past retirement age and don’t give a rat’s butt about technology. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s also probably an issue that old people are not personally that interested in. Believe me, if it was their grandchild who might be going to Limbo and not Heaven, or perhaps a whole bunch of aborted babies, they’d all of a sudden get really interested in finding out the answer. They might even post here on CAF looking for someone to help. And then you could help them to understand