Questions from Novus Ordo dad

[7rosario]

My Novus Ordo dad was asking these questions:

1. How do you know infallibility is true? Unless it’s really general like Love God and your neighbors? The more specific a dogma gets, the more it’s liable to error, b/c humans cannot understand God perfectly.
2. What is the origin of the idea that one should not accept other religions? Is this God’s will?

 

[scylla]

If infallibility does not exist then there is no truth that can be known for sure from God. So is everything taught and understood from the Bible at the most specific just suggestions but not really absolute truth? We can know about many other things but concerning God who is the author of the universe we can never know, which means that God does not have the power to give us truth. God has the power to create the universe, know everything but cannot communicate truth to us? Thinking about it shows that all this type thinking does is promote a belief in an God that doesn’t care about truth and puts people above God.

Now to not accept other religions is to affirm the existence of God, all other religions negate God’s truth in some way. So therefore the only reason to recognize them is to learn how to best convert them to Catholicism. This would involve respecting and loving the people held in them enough, to be patient and share God’s truth with them.
Only if truth matters is it God’s will that all men become Catholic, if truth doesn’t matter, then we can believe whatever we want.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[markadm]

this is off-topic, but it strikes me that due to the liturgical crisis in the Church belying poor catechesis, etc., you could replace “Questions from Novus Ordo dad” with “Questions from Protestant dad”. I mean this with no disrespect to your father; rather, I mean that the questions/objections – call them what you will – are the same as Protestant ones.

 

[Yerusalyim]

I enjoy and encourage those types of questions. My perspective is that those who were born and raised before V2 simply accepted what was taught…period. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with asking legitimate questions.

Imagine this scenario…a 12 year old kid is hanging around a priest quite a bit, interested in the priesthood. He’s been reading the bible. He knows the church teaches that Christ had no brothers and sisters and that Mary was always a Virgin, yet what he reads in the bible mentions Jesus’ brothers and sisters. He asks the priest why the discrepency…how does the priest answer the question?
Should he say, "this is what the church teaches, you don’t understand what you’re reading, just accept it.

Or?

Should he explain that there is no evidence Mary had other children, that those “brothers” listed in the Gospel of Mark are later named as the children of ANOTHER Mary, not Jesus mother…that they were either cousins or step brothers…not related by blood.

Which answer gets the better response from the 12 year old?

I got the first answer…and because this priest, who didn’t like the changes of V2 or losing TLM expected me to simply ACCEPT because it was a dogma of the church I lost interest in the priesthood (so I obviously didn’t have a vocation), but also created a crisis of faith that saw me almost leave the Church as a young adult before I came back home.

We should always be prepared to give an explanation of our faith…and that old joke…the Dogma of the Assumption “assumes” it happened…is not the way to catechize the faithful.

So we should be prepared to give an explanation of infallibility, or any other aspect of our faith, even to those who share our Catholicity.

 

[7rosario]

I enjoy and encourage those types of questions. My perspective is that those who were born and raised before V2 simply accepted what was taught…period. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with asking legitimate questions.

Imagine this scenario…a 12 year old kid is hanging around a priest quite a bit, interested in the priesthood. He’s been reading the bible. He knows the church teaches that Christ had no brothers and sisters and that Mary was always a Virgin, yet what he reads in the bible mentions Jesus’ brothers and sisters. He asks the priest why the discrepency…how does the priest answer the question?
Should he say, "this is what the church teaches, you don’t understand what you’re reading, just accept it.

Or?

Should he explain that there is no evidence Mary had other children, that those “brothers” listed in the Gospel of Mark are later named as the children of ANOTHER Mary, not Jesus mother…that they were either cousins or step brothers…not related by blood.

Which answer gets the better response from the 12 year old?

I got the first answer…and because this priest, who didn’t like the changes of V2 or losing TLM expected me to simply ACCEPT because it was a dogma of the church I lost interest in the priesthood (so I obviously didn’t have a vocation), but also created a crisis of faith that saw me almost leave the Church as a young adult before I came back home.

We should always be prepared to give an explanation of our faith…and that old joke…the Dogma of the Assumption “assumes” it happened…is not the way to catechize the faithful.

So we should be prepared to give an explanation of infallibility, or any other aspect of our faith, even to those who share our Catholicity.

His cousins, not brothers.

 

[Veritas41]

I enjoy and encourage those types of questions. My perspective is that those who were born and raised before V2 simply accepted what was taught…period. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with asking legitimate questions.

Imagine this scenario…a 12 year old kid is hanging around a priest quite a bit, interested in the priesthood. He’s been reading the bible. He knows the church teaches that Christ had no brothers and sisters and that Mary was always a Virgin, yet what he reads in the bible mentions Jesus’ brothers and sisters. He asks the priest why the discrepency…how does the priest answer the question?
Should he say, "this is what the church teaches, you don’t understand what you’re reading, just accept it.

Or?

Should he explain that there is no evidence Mary had other children, that those “brothers” listed in the Gospel of Mark are later named as the children of ANOTHER Mary, not Jesus mother…that they were either cousins or step brothers…not related by blood.

Which answer gets the better response from the 12 year old?

I got the first answer…and because this priest, who didn’t like the changes of V2 or losing TLM expected me to simply ACCEPT because it was a dogma of the church I lost interest in the priesthood (so I obviously didn’t have a vocation), but also created a crisis of faith that saw me almost leave the Church as a young adult before I came back home.

We should always be prepared to give an explanation of our faith…and that old joke…the Dogma of the Assumption “assumes” it happened…is not the way to catechize the faithful.

So we should be prepared to give an explanation of infallibility, or any other aspect of our faith, even to those who share our Catholicity.

As a convert to the Catholic faith I can tell you I agree with what you’ve said 100%. I had to understand the “why” behind various teachings before I could accept and fully understand them, not only individually but how they fit into the “larger” picture with other doctrines. As a catechist, that is how I’ve taught classes – explaining the “why” behind the teaching so those I’m teaching will be better grounded in their faith.

 

[latinmasslover]

I enjoy and encourage those types of questions. My perspective is that those who were born and raised before V2 simply accepted what was taught…period. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with asking legitimate questions.

Imagine this scenario…a 12 year old kid is hanging around a priest quite a bit, interested in the priesthood. He’s been reading the bible. He knows the church teaches that Christ had no brothers and sisters and that Mary was always a Virgin, yet what he reads in the bible mentions Jesus’ brothers and sisters. He asks the priest why the discrepency…how does the priest answer the question?
Should he say, "this is what the church teaches, you don’t understand what you’re reading, just accept it.

Or?

Should he explain that there is no evidence Mary had other children, that those “brothers” listed in the Gospel of Mark are later named as the children of ANOTHER Mary, not Jesus mother…that they were either cousins or step brothers…not related by blood.

Which answer gets the better response from the 12 year old?

I got the first answer…and because this priest, who didn’t like the changes of V2 or losing TLM expected me to simply ACCEPT because it was a dogma of the church I lost interest in the priesthood (so I obviously didn’t have a vocation), but also created a crisis of faith that saw me almost leave the Church as a young adult before I came back home.

We should always be prepared to give an explanation of our faith…and that old joke…the Dogma of the Assumption “assumes” it happened…is not the way to catechize the faithful.

So we should be prepared to give an explanation of infallibility, or any other aspect of our faith, even to those who share our Catholicity.

Are you implying that the Church didn’t explain things? That we were to just “accept it?” Come on!

 

[peary]

My Novus Ordo dad was asking these questions:

1. How do you know infallibility is true? Unless it’s really general like Love God and your neighbors? The more specific a dogma gets, the more it’s liable to error, b/c humans cannot understand God perfectly.
2. What is the origin of the idea that one should not accept other religions? Is this God’s will?

**Why do refer to him as your “Novus Ordo” dad? As a practicing Catholic Christian he should know the answers to his own questions. Or is he?

Infallibility is the dogma that, in Faith and morals, the pope, together with all the bishops, cannot err in teaching. This is a special charism of the Holy Spirit within the Church and must be understood as such. ‘Defining’ a dogma of the Faith is vastly different than just making something up. It doesn’t work that way. A defined dogma is something that has existed as a Faith belief among the faithful for a long time. For example, both dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption have been part of Catholic belief for centuries prior to their definition as “worthy of belief” for the whole Church. The same with the dogma of papal infallibility. Dogma is nothing new; it doesn’t fall out of the sky or from the pen of a theologian. It is a reflection of centuries of thought and prayer. If and when the Holy Spirit inspires the pope to proclaim a dogma as part of the Faith, the pope enlists the opinion of his bishops throughout the world beforehand. If there is overwhelming acceptance from them and it is in conformity with both the understanding of Scripture, the Church’s Sacred Tradition, and theological development, then it is a sign that it should be accepted as part of the true Faith. If any of these foundations is lacking, it doesn’t go.

As for accepting other religions, what does that mean? Does that mean all religions are equally valid? If so, then that is false. Although all non-Christian religions may have a kernel of God’s Truth within them, they are not Christian. Christianity is a religion of God’s revelation to us through His Church. It did not begin as a cultural development. The bible attests to this fact. Most religions do not teach salvation through Jesus Christ or God’s forgiveness. **

 

[Genesis315]

1. How do you know infallibility is true? Unless it’s really general like Love God and your neighbors? The more specific a dogma gets, the more it’s liable to error, b/c humans cannot understand God perfectly.

No, humans cannot completely comprehend God, but for the particular truths He has revealed, He has done so so we could believe them. It is in faith that we believe all He has revealed–we have faith that He would not deceive and that He asks us to believe these things because He loves us and because it is the best for us. Likewise, for that same love, we believe He ensured that that truth will be preserved and handed down for all men of all times.

Likewise, many things God reveals for us to believe may seem unreasonable to us. But that is what faith is all about–to trust God’s wisdom over our own–thus Abraham and Mary received completely unreasonable commands (Abraham: to sacrifice his only son just after God promised to increase his posterity through that son; Mary: to miraculously become pregnant as an unwed teenage where such individuals were cast out of society or even stoned) and both assented in faith because they trusted in God’s love.

Sure, reason can aid in this, but it can’t be the only tool we use–as our own reason is limited and fallen.

If we believe we can’t know the truth God has revealed for us to know, we have no faith in God’s power or wisdom or love.

As for love, God has revealed the truth He has so we know how to love Him and our neighbor to the depths He call us to–the world offers many counterfeit loves, from the superficial to the downright sinful.

1. What is the origin of the idea that one should not accept other religions? Is this God’s will?

If you believe in the inspiration of Scripture (a dogma), then God makes it pretty clear there is one true faith. He teaches His people to only worship Him, and the Apostles later do the same and teach us to reject false Gospels.

Since God cannot deceive, and since truth cannot contradict truth (for some reason we can accept this maxim for truth about anything accept God…), anything that contradicts what He has revealed is therefore not true. And anything that deviates from truth should be definition be rejected because it is at odds with God’s love (since the truth He has revealed is for love and because He is truth and He is love).

 

[Yerusalyim]

Are you implying that the Church didn’t explain things? That we were to just “accept it?” Come on!

Sure, the Church explains things in wordy documents written in the language of scholars, not 12 year old kids. When I was catechized as a teen we didn’t get theology we got some mealy mouthed form of ethics.

Yes, I’m saying that at the local level many well intentioned priests, nuns and CCD teachers expected acceptance without explanation…and I can’t tell you the number of Catholics I run into who can’t give a good defense of our faith.

I’m more than implying, I’m saying emphatically, this priest expected that I accept this without question.

How many Catholics do you know who can TRULLY explain our faith…and use scripture in doing so in most cases? How many trully know what is taught about Transubstantiation…how many know what the Church TRULLY teaches about Purgatory? How many can trully explain the difference in “praying” to saints and Praying to God. How many understand the homostatic union…shoot, how many can explain why the Church says the use of artificial birth control is immoral? Your average sit-in-the-pew-every-Sunday Catholic can not do so!

And many of the Pre-V2 ordained priests…and some of the post…expected that the faithful would faithfully accept BECAUSE THE CHURCH SAID IT WAS SO. More damage has been done to the faithful by this type of arrogance than most other sins of division I can think of. We as a Church have not done a good job of Catechizing the faithful…period.

 

[latinmasslover]

Sure, the Church explains things in wordy documents written in the language of scholars, not 12 year old kids. When I was catechized as a teen we didn’t get theology we got some mealy mouthed form of ethics.

Yes, I’m saying that at the local level many well intentioned priests, nuns and CCD teachers expected acceptance without explanation…and I can’t tell you the number of Catholics I run into who can’t give a good defense of our faith.

I’m more than implying, I’m saying emphatically, this priest expected that I accept this without question.

How many Catholics do you know who can TRULLY explain our faith…and use scripture in doing so in most cases? How many trully know what is taught about Transubstantiation…how many know what the Church TRULLY teaches about Purgatory? How many can trully explain the difference in “praying” to saints and Praying to God. How many understand the homostatic union…shoot, how many can explain why the Church says the use of artificial birth control is immoral? Your average sit-in-the-pew-every-Sunday Catholic can not do so!

And many of the Pre-V2 ordained priests…and some of the post…expected that the faithful would faithfully accept BECAUSE THE CHURCH SAID IT WAS SO. More damage has been done to the faithful by this type of arrogance than most other sins of division I can think of. We as a Church have not done a good job of Catechizing the faithful…period.

But isn’t it possible that many of the priests, nuns, etc, did nothing more than make the (apparently wrong) assumption that parents were doing their jobs and teaching their kids at home. I’m loathe to put the blame on the Church, but the fact is that even today, parents do not catechize their children. I had students who were dropped off for CCD while their parents went to Mass. Mr. S. and I explained that CCD does not replace Mass, and that parents have the obligation of taking their children. After that, her parents apparently decided to alternate Mass and CCD. I’m not saying the Church did it perfectly before V-II, but the main fault of children not being properly catechized belongs to the parents, and adults not being catechized properly is their own fault. When I came back to the Church in 2001, I knew more about the Faith than did the others that had been in CCD their whole lives. I’m not saying this to brag, simply that CCD hasn’t really improved much. Having been a military brat, we traveled a lot, and I never noticed much difference from parish to parish.

 

[Brother_John]

Are you implying that the Church didn’t explain things? That we were to just “accept it?” Come on!

I was raised post-Vatican II, but there were still plenty of priests and nuns around. And yes, we were pretty much taught “because the Church says so”. To question further was viewed as challenge, and got you “the glare”.

After a 25 year hiatus, I’m going to pursue teaching CCD again next school year. My first spin was the “because the Church says so” routine, which 7th and 8th grade kids totally tuned out.

This time around, I want to get into some understanding. Call it modernism if you like, but the world is gonna get more modern, not less. We must find modern ways and methods to grow our kids in the Church, so it doesn’t become “some weird stuff that my parents do…”

 

[peary]

But isn’t it possible that many of the priests, nuns, etc, did nothing more than make the (apparently wrong) assumption that parents were doing their jobs and teaching their kids at home. I’m loathe to put the blame on the Church, but the fact is that even today, parents do not catechize their children. I had students who were dropped off for CCD while their parents went to Mass. Mr. S. and I explained that CCD does not replace Mass, and that parents have the obligation of taking their children. After that, her parents apparently decided to alternate Mass and CCD. I’m not saying the Church did it perfectly before V-II, but the main fault of children not being properly catechized belongs to the parents, and adults not being catechized properly is their own fault. When I came back to the Church in 2001, I knew more about the Faith than did the others that had been in CCD their whole lives. I’m not saying this to brag, simply that CCD hasn’t really improved much. Having been a military brat, we traveled a lot, and I never noticed much difference from parish to parish.

When all is said and done, the fact is we have TWO generations which have not learned their Catholic Faith because of very poor catechetical training. Unfortunately, you can’t teach your child what you don’t have inside of you yourself.

 

[scylla]

I was raised post-Vatican II, but there were still plenty of priests and nuns around. And yes, we were pretty much taught “because the Church says so”. To question further was viewed as challenge, and got you “the glare”.

After a 25 year hiatus, I’m going to pursue teaching CCD again next school year. My first spin was the “because the Church says so” routine, which 7th and 8th grade kids totally tuned out.

This time around, I want to get into some understanding. Call it modernism if you like, but the world is gonna get more modern, not less. We must find modern ways and methods to grow our kids in the Church, so it doesn’t become “some weird stuff that my parents do…”

That isn’t modernism, and I agree that we must teach the faith and teach people to understand it.
You can use the Baltimore Catechism to do so, and you can explain things also. But all this painting butterflies and letting each other know how you feel does nothing.
I grew up in the 80’s with that sort of thing and I see it today with silly felt banners and art projects substituting for a solid faith formation based upon Catholicism.

Ask any liturgist why they are inventing a new way of doing something and you get the glare when you ask more than one question.

We should look to the past to see what our faith really is and then see how it best can be explained and passed on. Teach the faith and you can do it comprehensively.

Now what is evil, is thinking that just because it is new, it is better. Or that we know better now because we have a better understanding than before. The faith comes from our past and is the future, it doesn’t change. We need to embrace the past, hold on to the good and throw out the bad.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[latinmasslover]

I was raised post-Vatican II, but there were still plenty of priests and nuns around. And yes, we were pretty much taught “because the Church says so”. To question further was viewed as challenge, and got you “the glare”.

After a 25 year hiatus, I’m going to pursue teaching CCD again next school year. My first spin was the “because the Church says so” routine, which 7th and 8th grade kids totally tuned out.

This time around, I want to get into some understanding. Call it modernism if you like, but the world is gonna get more modern, not less. We must find modern ways and methods to grow our kids in the Church, so it doesn’t become “some weird stuff that my parents do…”

It’s not modernism to explain things. Some things can’t be explained well, or at least completely understood. That’s where we have to take it on faith that, regarding faith and morals, the Church cannot err. This is where we say “Because the Church says so” (with an explanation of why the Church is right, of course).

 

[Brother_John]

It’s not modernism to explain things. Some things can’t be explained well, or at least completely understood. That’s where we have to take it on faith that, regarding faith and morals, the Church cannot err. This is where we say “Because the Church says so” (with an explanation of why the Church is right, of course).

Unfortunately, today’s 7th and 8th grade CCD students aren’t gonna buy “Because the Church says so”…and all the pontificating in the world won’t change that.

We’d better start figuring out HOW to explain things before we start losing the future of our Church.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Unfortunately, today’s 7th and 8th grade CCD students aren’t gonna buy “Because the Church says so”…and all the pontificating in the world won’t change that.

We’d better start figuring out HOW to explain things before we start losing the future of our Church.

I completely disagree, it’s not UNFORTUNATE that 7th and 8th graders won’t accept “Because the Church says so.” That’s AWESOME. And whether or not we want to label this “post modern” is pointless…the point is we are charged to be able to give an explanation for our faith…yet most can’t, and that goes back to poor catechesis whether you blame that on the parents or the parish.

I don’t blame “the church” for poor catechesis, but I do blame priests and parishes that accept what’s been taught for the last 40 years.

 

[peary]

I completely disagree, it’s not UNFORTUNATE that 7th and 8th graders won’t accept “Because the Church says so.” That’s AWESOME. And whether or not we want to label this “post modern” is pointless…the point is we are charged to be able to give an explanation for our faith…yet most can’t, and that goes back to poor catechesis whether you blame that on the parents or the parish.

I don’t blame “the church” for poor catechesis, but I do blame priests and parishes that accept what’s been taught for the last 40 years.

 

[Brother_John]

I completely disagree, it’s not UNFORTUNATE that 7th and 8th graders won’t accept “Because the Church says so.” That’s AWESOME. And whether or not we want to label this “post modern” is pointless…the point is we are charged to be able to give an explanation for our faith…yet most can’t, and that goes back to poor catechesis whether you blame that on the parents or the parish.

I don’t blame “the church” for poor catechesis, but I do blame priests and parishes that accept what’s been taught for the last 40 years.

How does your statement disagree with mine? We seem to agree that 7th and 8th grade kids won’t accept “Because the Church says so”, and that we need to better explain our faith.

So, how do our statements conflict?

 

[peary]

How does your statement disagree with mine? We seem to agree that 7th and 8th grade kids won’t accept “Because the Church says so”, and that we need to better explain our faith.

So, how do our statements conflict?

The “nature of the animal” is that…7th and 8th graders don’t accept a lot of authority. They know it all. Just ask them!