C
captainmike
Guest
What have been the ten biggest changes in Church teaching and practices from 1900 to the present?
- Status
D
dmar198
Guest
In terms of teaching, nothing has changed. Everything that we teach now can be found in Magisterial documents from before the 1900s. The closest you could get is the dogma of the Assumption, which was only declared as dogma in 1950. But even before that it was universally believed and accepted by all Catholics and was celebrated with an ancient Feast Day – the oldest in honor of Mary, in fact.
In terms of practice, the greatest change is the change in the Mass, which is now celebrated in the language of each nation. (Prior to 1967 or so it was celebrated in Latin almost universally, with only a few exceptions in the Latin rite.) The Mass itself was altered at that time too to add more parts where the laity participate by oral responses to things the Priest says.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
I would suggest that the Church’s approach to and relationship with Judiasm is a major area that has changed. Well into the 1950’s we heard about the “faithless” Jews (and in some places, the “perfidious Jews”) during the Good Friday liturgy. The average Catholic in the early 1900’s would not have regarded it as wrong to blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ, and would likely have found support for this view at the parish level at least. The idea of a pope visiting a synagogue would have been inconceivable.
“Nostra Aetate” has provided a positive vision and basis for Christian - Jewish relations, and reminds us that the Jewish people are our older brothers and sisters in the faith of the One God, and do not bear unique responsibility for Christ’s death. Several successive popes have been warmly received at the synagogue of Rome.
“Nostra Aetate” has provided a positive vision and basis for Christian - Jewish relations, and reminds us that the Jewish people are our older brothers and sisters in the faith of the One God, and do not bear unique responsibility for Christ’s death. Several successive popes have been warmly received at the synagogue of Rome.
V
VanSensei
Guest
A really big one would be how the Church handles non-Catholics. It used to be near-dogma that the only people that were saved at all were Catholics. Mixed marriages got very little respect and attending Protestant services was a mortal sin. This has all changed now, obviously.
From the Baltimore Catechism.
D
dmar198
Guest
I think the evidence suggests otherwise. I often like to look up historical commentaries on passages of Scripture that are used to defend Catholic doctrines that are attacked in the modern world, and I usually find that the Catholics of last twenty centuries believed the same things about those passages that the Catholics of the present century do. Now regarding the possibility of non-Catholics being saved, two passages that are frequently cited by Catholics to prove this are Romans 2:14-16 and John 15:22-24. I looked up both of them in the Haydock Bible Commentary of 1859 and in the 1582 Douay-Rheims Bible, which contains medieval Catholic commentary in the margins and in the footnotes at the back of the book.
The 1859 Haydock Bible Commentary on Romans 2:14-16 reflects the current Catholic doctrine that invincible ignorance can save those who, through no fault of their own, do not believe in the Catholic faith. (Actually that language is theologically imprecise. Invincible ignorance isn’t what saves a person, it just creates a condition in which they can be saved without being baptized as Catholic.) The same goes for its commentary on John 15:22.
The 1859 commentary on Romans 2:14-16 says, “[The Gentiles] have it written in their hearts, as to the existence of a God, and their reason tells them, that many sins are unlawful: they may also do some actions that are morally good, as by giving alms to relieve the poor, honouring their parents, &c. not that these actions, morally good, will suffice for their justification of themselves, or make them deserve a supernatural reward in the kingdom of heaven; but God, out of his infinite mercy, will give them some supernatural graces, by which they come to know, and believe, that he will reward their souls for eternity. Such, says St. Chrysostom, were the dispositions of Melchisedech, Job, Cornelius the Centurion, &c.”
On John 15:22-24 it says, “[The Jews who were ignorant of Christ] would not have sin, or would not be guilty of sin: that is, they might be excused, as to their not believing [Jesus] to be their Messias.”
The 1582 Douay-Rheims Bible commentary teaches the same doctrine on Romans 2:26 – “If a Gentile either now since Christ, by his grace and faith, or any other before Christ, not of the stock of Abraham, through the Spirit of God keep the justices of the Law, he is just no less than if he had been outwardly circumcised.”
The 1582 commentary doesn’t say anything about invincible ignorance on John 15:22-24 though.
Interestingly, the Haydock commentary cites St. Augustine to back up its doctrine on invincible ignorance. And, as is pointed out here and in post #5 here (scroll down a little till you reach the fifth post), St. Augustine talked about invincible ignorance and how it excuses a person from the sin of unbelief. In a little bit I’ll search the writings of the other ECFs and see if any of the others said anything about it on those two passages of Scripture I mentioned earlier. But already I’m finding that invincible ignorance definitely had a presence in Catholic theology before the 1900s, at least in ~400 A.D., 1582 A.D., and 1859 A.D.
B
bben15
Guest
Isn’t attending a Protestant service still a mortal sin?
V
VanSensei
Guest
No, I think it’s just taking their Communion if they have it that could still be a sin. Attending one is not.
J
janeway529
Guest
Besides the Second Vatican Council, I would have to go with the Catholic Church:
-Accepting the use of Two-Source Theory and adopting the (originally Protestant) historical-critical method in Scripture scholarship.
-Pope Pius XII’s liturgical reforms - introduction of Easter Vigil, allowing the use of the vernacular in certain situations and areas, reform of the liturgical calendar, etc.
-Creation of the Code of Canon Law
-Accepting the use of Two-Source Theory and adopting the (originally Protestant) historical-critical method in Scripture scholarship.
-Pope Pius XII’s liturgical reforms - introduction of Easter Vigil, allowing the use of the vernacular in certain situations and areas, reform of the liturgical calendar, etc.
-Creation of the Code of Canon Law
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
good point to be brought up. also relations with non-Catholics that another poster brought up.
T
TimothyH
Guest
In terms of practice, the restoration of the permanent diaconate after 1000 years of disuse is probably the biggest.
-Tim-
-Tim-
P
ProVobis
Guest
That was one of the biggest issues discussed in the 60’s, as many Catholics thought they couldn’t attend funerals, weddings, recitals, etc. outside a Catholic Church. While it is no longer a sin to attend a Protestant service, a Catholic would not fulfill his Sunday obligation there.
I may be wrong on this but an Eastern rite liturgy was also frowned up before Vatican II for a Latin Rite Catholic. Today it is not only allowed but fulfills the Sunday obligation. (I forget the rules for attending the Orthodox Church.)
B
bcuster
Guest
Succinct and clear answer. I would extend it by saying that all the Liturgy of the church has been changed to include more scripture. In the Liturgy of the Hours there are 4 cycles of psalms. In the Mass an additional reading from the Old Testament was added on Sundays. There are 3 cycles of Sunday readings and 2 of Daily readings for Mass.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
when did the restoration of the permanent diaconate happen?
J
janeway529
Guest
T
TRH1292
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
Is this really new, since all deacons are in a sense “permanent,” as we’ve discussed before? And what if a transitional deacon had a change of heart? He wasn’t forced to become priest, was he?
Changes in the 1900’s included:
(1) Relaxation of the Eucharistic fast from midnight to three hours to one hour.
(2) Relaxation of meat abstinence and fasting rules.
(3) Allowance for Saturday vespere (evening) Mass attendance to fulfill Sunday obligation.
(4) Elimination of subdeacon and other titles, not their roles in solemn Masses.
(5) Facing the people for whole Mass developed some time after 1940, I believe.
(6) Church architecture and music. (Probably true of most centuries.)
(7) Large-scale Mass reforms begun after WWII.
M
M-Dent
Guest
Common themes of the magisterium (In the early 1900’s) - warning of the grave dangers of modern philosophical systems, (i.e., materialism, determinism , nihilism, relativism, etc…) and of political systems directly or functionally atheistic. In philosophical issues - the promotion of Thomism philosophy was endorsed as a defense. As for the political upheaval, a great effort was made to educate the world in regards to the proper dignity of the person (All classes of people. Rich and poor). Promotion of more just and rightly ordered societies. And what was not acceptable (see Pope Leo XIII)
The analysis and efforts in regards to the *Modernist Crisis * was interrupted by two world wars.
The violence and trauma of all the upheavals in this time period also came with positive changes in many societies with the status of minorities and women.
The Church then entered the period of the Second Vatican Council. The continued theme of the proper dignity of the person was an important one.
The three greatest changes in the life of the Church since the Council are arguably the 1,) Liturgy, 2.) Discipline (medicine of mercy.) and 3.) Ecclesiology (Focus on unity and communion. Greater understanding of proper roles and promoting more active participation for all within the Church.)
Overall, as with every age of the Church there are healthy developments and unhealthy abuses
The analysis and efforts in regards to the *Modernist Crisis * was interrupted by two world wars.
The violence and trauma of all the upheavals in this time period also came with positive changes in many societies with the status of minorities and women.
The Church then entered the period of the Second Vatican Council. The continued theme of the proper dignity of the person was an important one.
The three greatest changes in the life of the Church since the Council are arguably the 1,) Liturgy, 2.) Discipline (medicine of mercy.) and 3.) Ecclesiology (Focus on unity and communion. Greater understanding of proper roles and promoting more active participation for all within the Church.)
Overall, as with every age of the Church there are healthy developments and unhealthy abuses
C
clem456
Guest
Hadn’t thought of that. I agree. The permanent diaconate has been a blessing for our parish.
J
janeway529
Guest
It’s not “new” in the sense that the permanent diaconate was around in the early Church, but for some unknown reason it fell into disuse and eventually disappeared. During that period of no permanent diaconate, I would suppose most people at the time, including priests and bishops (perhaps even the pope), did not [fully] understand the concept of a permanent diaconate as a separate, defined, non-minor order on the path to priesthood. The Council of Trent had called for its restoration, but it wasn’t until the Second Vatican Council that we actually see it implemented by the pope.
If a transitional deacon had a change of heart, I would hope he would be given some time to think about his decision, probably his bishop hoping he would eventually decide to become a priest. Otherwise, the only other possible solutions I can think of would be joining a religious order like the Franciscans and becoming a brother or expulsion from seminary formation altogether.
M
macroom2
Guest
The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) states that “it seems” that we are more responsible for our sins than the Jews because they didn’t understand what they were rejecting. In a parochial school (1946 to 1954) I was taught that a sin by a Catholic is worse than the same sin by a non-Catholic because we are the true Chosen People and more is expected of us. Of course, many individual Catholics were bigots who despised blacks, Jews, Chinese and others. And there are still many!
- Status