Pope Benedict XVI Speaks Out Against Changes In Dogma

[Padres1969]

Most of which has little or nothing to do with ecumenism, but rather has to do with two issues: 1) the extremely poor catechesis starting in the early 1970’s after the Baltimore Catechism got tossed out the window, to be replaced with pablum; and the rise in secularism, which the United States lagged behind Europe about 100 years, and which has been dished out 24/7/365 through the media, and in particular, by television.

Has the RCC been addressing this at all? Admittedly most of the people I know who went through Catholic catechesis did so between the early 80’s and late 90’s. And I’d agree that during that time frame catechesis was frankly abysmal. But has the church made changes to the way it catechizes those growing up with or entering the faith in the last 15 years to improve it?

 

[OraLabora]

Has the RCC been addressing this at all? Admittedly most of the people I know who went through Catholic catechesis did so between the early 80’s and late 90’s. And I’d agree that during that time frame catechesis was frankly abysmal. But has the church made changes to the way it catechizes those growing up with or entering the faith in the last 15 years to improve it?

I went to a Catholic school in the 60s and we had our French equivalent of the Baltimore Catechism. We went to all the parish events, First Fridays, and all that.

To be honest I can’t say it made a huge impression on me. As I was very good in school, I became very good at reciting the rote responses from memory without actually learning (or caring) what they really meant. It was only when I became a Catholic through my own heart, at 39 years of age (I’m now 57), did I start to really pay attention to what the Church taught and what all those questions and responses meant. I actually bolted pretty firmly from the Church at age 17 and didn’t come back until 22 years later.

My personal experience, others may have felt differently. Suffices to say that rote learning of the Catechism in the “Baltimore Catechism” style that so many are nostalgic for on CAF, did absolutely nothing to provoke my curiosity about the faith and did quite the opposite, it frankly turned me off of Catholicism for many years.

 

[otjm]

Has the RCC been addressing this at all? Admittedly most of the people I know who went through Catholic catechesis did so between the early 80’s and late 90’s. And I’d agree that during that time frame catechesis was frankly abysmal. But has the church made changes to the way it catechizes those growing up with or entering the faith in the last 15 years to improve it?

Yes; the bishops finally woke up, and work started in seriousness in about 1990. Work continues on the matter.

 

[otjm]

I went to a Catholic school in the 60s and we had our French equivalent of the Baltimore Catechism. We went to all the parish events, First Fridays, and all that.

To be honest I can’t say it made a huge impression on me. As I was very good in school, I became very good at reciting the rote responses from memory without actually learning (or caring) what they really meant. It was only when I became a Catholic through my own heart, at 39 years of age (I’m now 57), did I start to really pay attention to what the Church taught and what all those questions and responses meant. I actually bolted pretty firmly from the Church at age 17 and didn’t come back until 22 years later.

My personal experience, others may have felt differently. Suffices to say that rote learning of the Catechism in the “Baltimore Catechism” style that so many are nostalgic for on CAF, did absolutely nothing to provoke my curiosity about the faith and did quite the opposite, it frankly turned me off of Catholicism for many years.

You had a whole lot of company. The Baltimore Catechism on its ownhad good points - it was clear, and explained the teachings and belief of the Church.

But faith, as you well state, is not about memorizing dogma - as someone has said, even the devil can quote scripture.

On the other hand, there is a little bit more (just possibly) to our faith than being nice to people, and gluing cotton balls onto sheep cutouts… you missed the bubblegum approach to catechesis. Well, actually, you din’t miss much at all…

 

[Abu]

JackVk #11
He was a raging theological liberal during Vatican II. When he saw things going haywire, he became more conservative.
otjm #20
He was a progressive (as was John Paul 2),

Well hardly, for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger in his Memoirs, Milestones, Ignatius 1998, re working with Rahner at Vatican II:
“Rahner and I lived on two different theological planets…his theology was totally conditioned by the tradition of Suarezian scholasticism and its new reception in the light of German idealism and of Heidegger…a speculative and philosophical theology in which Scripture and the Fathers in the end did not play an important role and in which the historical dimension was really of little significance.” (p128).

Further, the schema re the Constitution on Divine Revelation, largely the work of Rahner, was not accepted. (p 129).

In 1969 Fr Ratzinger was appointed to the International Papal Theological Commission, in which he says, “there was considerable tension”, but found much support from such as “Henri de Lubac, Jorge Medina (Chile)”, and the “great figure of Hans Urs von Balthazar….Never again have I found anyone with such a comprehensive theological and humanistic education as Balthazar and de Lubac….” (p143).

Further, in the late “60’s, we have how the then Cardinal Ratzinger viewed “progressives”:
“Rahner, on the other hand, for the most part allowed himself to be ‘sworn in’ according to the progressive slogans, and allowed himself as well to be pushed into adventuresome political positions difficult to reconcile with his own transcendental philosophy….Rahner and Feiner, the Swiss ecumenist, finally left the Commission because, in their opinion, it was worthless since the majority of its members was not ready to subscribe to radical theses.” (p143-4). [My emphases].

 

[otjm]

Well hardly, for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger in his Memoirs, Milestones, Ignatius 1998, re working with Rahner at Vatican II:
“Rahner and I lived on two different theological planets…his theology was totally conditioned by the tradition of Suarezian scholasticism and its new reception in the light of German idealism and of Heidegger…a speculative and philosophical theology in which Scripture and the Fathers in the end did not play an important role and in which the historical dimension was really of little significance.” (p128).

Further, the schema re the Constitution on Divine Revelation, largely the work of Rahner, was not accepted. (p 129).

In 1969 Fr Ratzinger was appointed to the International Papal Theological Commission, in which he says, “there was considerable tension”, but found much support from such as “Henri de Lubac, Jorge Medina (Chile)”, and the “great figure of Hans Urs von Balthazar….Never again have I found anyone with such a comprehensive theological and humanistic education as Balthazar and de Lubac….” (p143).

Further, in the late “60’s, we have how the then Cardinal Ratzinger viewed “progressives”:
“Rahner, on the other hand, for the most part allowed himself to be ‘sworn in’ according to the progressive slogans, and allowed himself as well to be pushed into adventuresome political positions difficult to reconcile with his own transcendental philosophy….Rahner and Feiner, the Swiss ecumenist, finally left the Commission because, in their opinion, it was worthless since the majority of its members was not ready to subscribe to radical theses.” (p143-4). [My emphases].

Some of it depends from which point one chooses to measure.

Given the stance of Cardinal Ottaviani and those who agreed with him, both Ratzinger and Wojtyla were progressives; and Rahner was farther out on the spectrum. It might be remembered that de Lubac was effectively banned from 1950 to 1958 when the Jesuits were pressured by Rome to remove him from his teaching position.

It all comes down to a question of how one defines the term “progressive”; and that varies depending on one’s starting point.

 

[Abu]

otjm #27
It might be remembered that de Lubac was effectively banned from 1950 to 1958 when the Jesuits were pressured by Rome to remove him from his teaching position.

While he can be criticised also for his defence of Teilhard de Chardin, his immense contributions to the Church have been well recognised.

ignatiusinsight.com/authors/henridelubac.asp
“During the 1950s de Lubac came under suspicion from the Vatican for his teachings about the supernatural and grace. He was eventually obligated to stop publication of his works because of doctrinal objections against his controversial book, Surnaturel. However, he continued his prolific output of other work, including studies on atheism, Buddhism, medieval biblical exegesis, ecclesiology, and the sacramental nature of Catholicism.”

As Pope, St John Paul II, who had the highest esteem for de Lubac, stopped his address during a major talk and acknowleged the presence of de Lubac saying, “I bow my head to Father Henri de Lubac.” Subsequently, the Pope appointed the holy and beloved theologian a Cardinal.

“He became a member of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences in 1957 and a faculty member at the Catholic Institute of Paris two years later. He would then participate in Vatican II as a peritus, or theological expert, from 1962-5.”

'The Oxford Dictionary of the Catholic Church states: “De Lubac was one of the thinkers who created the intellectual climate that made possible the Second Vatican Council, largely by opening up the vast spiritual resources of the Catholic tradition which had been cramped by post-Tridentine ‘baroque’ theology.” ’

 

[Jon_Mallory]

A key point in this interview is crisis, terrible deep crisis in the Church.

A crisis, where in many places in the so-called first world, at least, there won’t be a Catholic church left in a few decades, the way things are going.

(For example, I once lived in France where I knew a priest who was responsible for 40 parishes …)

No one has mentioned the crisis yet in this thread …

But Benedict XVI knows it all-too-well.

It is for this very reason that I turned to Orthodoxy. While larger and considerably more popular than the Orthodox Church, the RCC has an identity crisis on its hands.

 

[JPUSC]

It is for this very reason that I turned to Orthodoxy. While larger and considerably more popular than the Orthodox Church, the RCC has an identity crisis on its hands.

AMEN.

Believe in love. youtu.be/-6FfTxwTX34

"Why you should try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?”
Pope Benedict XVI

 

[commenter]

Has the RCC been addressing this at all? Admittedly most of the people I know who went through Catholic catechesis did so between the early 80’s and late 90’s. And I’d agree that during that time frame catechesis was frankly abysmal. But has the church made changes to the way it catechizes those growing up with or entering the faith in the last 15 years to improve it?

Yes, it has.
Starting in the late 1960s catechetics became almost an independent “church within the Church”. Many people, especially sisters who had been overworked and taken advantage of prior to the Council, became almost hostile to elements of Catholicism: authority, the supernatural, dogma, and naively embraced whatever the media preached. Religious educators networked with each other, not with pastors or bishops. They connected with colleges, and Religion textbook publishers, who eliminated any specific doctrinal content from curricula, and used training, licensing, and other screenings to filter out religion teachers who still wanted doctrinal content.

When conservative bishops were appointed in the 1980s, this was the one area most resistant to change. Later on, the Catechism of the Catholic Church provided a kind of template, by which catechetics might be measured. I don’t think much changed until “that generation”, who never stopped fighting the battles of the 1960s, began to retire.

The problem today is no longer hostility to doctrine, and the supernatural aspect of Catholicism; but ignorance of doctrine. My bishop is explicitly addressing this. There are far fewer Catholic schools so he and we have to be creative about where and when to communicate the Faith, including Vatican II.

Homeschooling for Catholics is strong on doctrinal content, only now there is some parish and diocesan support. A few laity started a high school last year, restoring the classical curriculum including philosophy, based on the Great Books and critical thinking. The bishop is supporting us. Some non-doctrinal, Catholic-lite high schools are still around, where religion is mostly social studies. But they are closing, one by one.

 

[OraLabora]

You had a whole lot of company. The Baltimore Catechism on its ownhad good points - it was clear, and explained the teachings and belief of the Church.

But faith, as you well state, is not about memorizing dogma - as someone has said, even the devil can quote scripture.

On the other hand, there is a little bit more (just possibly) to our faith than being nice to people, and gluing cotton balls onto sheep cutouts… you missed the bubblegum approach to catechesis. Well, actually, you din’t miss much at all…

Agree completely. The sad thing about the BC (or in our case the French equivalent) was that we weren’t encouraged to think. It was only when, in a very low moment 19 years ago, I started to read the Bible and think it through, did Catholicism suddenly made sense. I’ve always been encouraged, by my parents, to think. It’s probably why I chose a career in the sciences (before migrating late in my career to IT).

Ironically it was recognizing the limits of science in explaining the why and purpose of our existence did the bulb go off. Science and faith are not incompatible. Thinking and learning the faith are not incompatible. The philosophy and logic of Catholicism are very compelling once you scratch beneath the surface of memorized dogma…

 

[commenter]

The Baltimore Catechism is economical in wording. It explained the essentials of something in a very few words, while later religion texts would take thousands of words, and the student would have no idea what was more important than what.

Ideally the BC should be used as an outline. Then the teacher can help personalize it, flesh it out with examples, perhaps with students discussing in a small group. But the outline is always there to refer back to. As students grow older, they can clarify, probe deeper applications of that same outline. In recent years I have known Catholic college students who have heard lots of unconnected bits of information on religion, but lack the mature perspective, the outline, their parents had already in 6th grade.

It is unfair to blame the BC, because when it was used, there often was a teacher who was unprepared, overworked with no breaks all day, and 50 or so students in a hot, overcrowded room. Even in the 1960 conditions, students still learned more from the BC outline than children who came along later, with the cotton-candy fluff.

 

[Bookcat]

Pope Benedict XVI speaks out on Out Side The Church There is No Salvation and indifferentism.

One must take care not to misconstrue what he was saying…he was not “speaking out on changes in Dogma”…

One must read the full text (some was left out in some versions) and in context.

 

[ProVobis]

The sad thing about the BC (or in our case the French equivalent) was that we weren’t encouraged to think.

Maybe not, but neither were the multiplication tables which we needed to memorize but which opened the doors to deeper thinking and looking for patterns in the future. That’s the way we learn things.

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by OraLabora View Post
The sad thing about the BC (or in our case the French equivalent) was that we weren’t encouraged to think.

Maybe not, but neither were the multiplication tables which we needed to memorize but which opened the doors to deeper thinking and looking for patterns in the future. That’s the way we learn things.

I used the BC as a child, and I thought about the subjects it pertained to. The BC was an outline, which is by definition, incomplete. It left me curious about what more might be true, given these basics. The later religion texts that I used to teach CCD, and what my children used, gave the impression that nothing is known for certain, everything is a matter of opinion. That does not encourage further thought.

I help tutor at a traditional high school (faculty take oath of fidelity to Magisterium). We teach how to diagram a sentence. (I worked with grad students in another setting, who have no concept of nouns, verbs, direct objects). I also work with students who had Common Core in prior years (not at our school!!). If they went to certain schools before, they have a vague idea of concepts of things, but have incredible gaps in their knowledge of the most basic elements of History, Science, and, yes, multiplication. We are helping fill those gaps.

I wonder how many college students, who take courses in Diversity Theory, can name what decade the Civil War occurred? When I taught a grad course to students who were teachers, they seemed to have hardly any specific factual information in their minds. They also seemed to have little curiosity. Paradoxically I think dogma, and being open-minded, go together. So does their absence.

 

[ProVobis]

It left me curious …

Then you were taught well, IMO.

 

[Lormar]

The Baltimore Catechism is economical in wording. It explained the essentials of something in a very few words, while later religion texts would take thousands of words, and the student would have no idea what was more important than what.

Ideally the BC should be used as an outline. Then the teacher can help personalize it, flesh it out with examples, perhaps with students discussing in a small group. But the outline is always there to refer back to. As students grow older, they can clarify, probe deeper applications of that same outline. In recent years I have known Catholic college students who have heard lots of unconnected bits of information on religion, but lack the mature perspective, the outline, their parents had already in 6th grade.

It is unfair to blame the BC, because when it was used, there often was a teacher who was unprepared, overworked with no breaks all day, and 50 or so students in a hot, overcrowded room. Even in the 1960 conditions, students still learned more from the BC outline than children who came along later, with the cotton-candy fluff.

Well said and true. I was there as well.

 

[otjm]

Maybe not, but neither were the multiplication tables which we needed to memorize but which opened the doors to deeper thinking and looking for patterns in the future. That’s the way we learn things.

Sorry, but that is an extremely poor analogy.

Faith without knowledge is a short road to heresy.

Knowledge without faith is a short road to the path of the Pharasees.

One can recite to its finest detail information concerning Transubstantiation, but all that knowledge will not create a hunger for the Eucharist.

Nor will lack of knowledge and understanding to that create that hunger - see our Protestant brethren who may know next to nothing; they may be lucky if they have a eucharist type sharing once a month. They have no idea what they are missing.

Faith needs to be guided by knowledge, but faith is not knowledge.

 

[Abu]

Jon Mallory #29
It is for this very reason that I turned to Orthodoxy. While larger and considerably more popular than the Orthodox Church, the RCC has an identity crisis on its hands.

False.
Her distinctiveness is Her identity – instituted by Christ Himself and mandated by Him to teach, sanctify and rule.

Fancy disregarding Christ:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis].

Again, to St. Peter alone, in Jn., 21:15-17, He committed the whole flock, saying: “Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep;” also, in Lk., 22:32: “I have prayed for thee (again in the singular) that thy faith fail not; and do thou . . . confirm my brethren.”

“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).
And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 20).

If you do not heed the clear words of Christ you are out of touch with Him.

Not only do the Orthodox, unfaithfully, have no notion of a universal Church, only of local churches, they permit divorce and remarriage, contraception, IVF and have no doctrine on a host of medical and health ethics, while recognising Anglican orders. They are not a Church but an assemblage of Churches

Otjm #39
Faith needs to be guided by knowledge, but faith is not knowledge.

Too true.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

False.
Her distinctiveness is Her identity – instituted by Christ Himself and mandated by Him to teach, sanctify and rule.

Fancy disregarding Christ:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis].

Again, to St. Peter alone, in Jn., 21:15-17, He committed the whole flock, saying: “Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep;” also, in Lk., 22:32: “I have prayed for thee (again in the singular) that thy faith fail not; and do thou . . . confirm my brethren.”

“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).
And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 20).

If you do not heed the clear words of Christ you are out of touch with Him.

Not only do the Orthodox, unfaithfully, have no notion of a universal Church, only of local churches, they permit divorce and remarriage, contraception, IVF and have no doctrine on a host of medical and health ethics, while recognising Anglican orders. They are not a Church but an assemblage of Churches
Too true.

This is a gross caricature of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church is one Church. Russian Orthodox can take communion at a Greek Orthodox Church and vice versa. Also, they have kept the faith more ardently than the RCC church. They don’t lift the sacraments out of their proper context like Rome does. The Eucharist should only be adored in the context of the communion but Rome came up with the innovation of Eucharistic adoration. Also, regarding marriage, the Orthodox don’t suffer from legalism. In Catholicism, you can have a marriage annulled when you discover a technicality like your spouse not wanting to have children. In Orthodoxy, the sacrament is conferred by the priest, not the people. It s not some mere legal contract. Also, the Orthodox have not suffered from the liturgical chaos. In the words of Pope Benedict, Rome suffers from fabricated liturgy that has much of the former tradition removed, leaving only the bare essentials. It is a manufactured liturgy and has harmed the faith of many Catholics. Yes, Rome does have an identity crisis. Traditionalists oppose liberals. Many Catholics openly reject essential dogmas such as papal infallibility. Some even support gay marriage and abortion. The divide between the clergy and the laity is stark. There is a de facto schism in the pews. People who reject these dogmas have excommunicated themselves and don’t even know it.