The Catholic Church since 1900

[Denise1957]

What have been the ten biggest changes in Church teaching and practices from 1900 to the present?

One of the big changes seems to be that the use of indulgences has gone out of practice, except in some traditional/TLM parishes.

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

 

[otjm]

Isn’t attending a Protestant service still a mortal sin?

It depends. If you are lax about Catholicism, it might be, or not. If you are seeking to leave the Church, it may be. Or not. If you are attending in order to fulfill your Sunday obligation, it may well be. Or not.

If you are attending because a family member belongs to that assembly, probably not. But possibly. The same for a funeral or wedding.

A lot depends on why you are attending, and how, if at all, that impacts your Catholicism. In other words, the physical presence is not the issue; it is your intent.

 

[TimothyH]

Another possibility may be the advent of the spirituality of Opus Dei, that holiness is not just for priests and the religious.

I don’t mean Opus Dei itself specifically, but what it teaches about personal holiness being available to the ordinary person and attainable by regular people who live lives in secular society. The idea that holiness was only available to a select few was a major problem. St. Josemaria Escriva’s teachings were in some ways quite radical at the time.

I don’t know if this is as visible as a some of the other changes discussed. The ideas and spirituality expressed by Opus Dei have slowly permeated parts of the Church - kinda like grass growing - difficult to see it while you are looking at it.

-Tim-

 

[concretecamper]

It depends. If you are lax about Catholicism, it might be, or not. If you are seeking to leave the Church, it may be. Or not. If you are attending in order to fulfill your Sunday obligation, it may well be. Or not.

If you are attending because a family member belongs to that assembly, probably not. But possibly. The same for a funeral or wedding.

A lot depends on why you are attending, and how, if at all, that impacts your Catholicism. In other words, the physical presence is not the issue; it is your intent.

So, your brother, a cradle Catholic, decides to marry a woman in a pentecostal service and is not granted permission by the Catholic Church. Is going to the service the correct thing to do?

 

[gracepoole]

So, your brother, a cradle Catholic, decides to marry a woman in a pentecostal service and is not granted permission by the Catholic Church. Is going to the service the correct thing to do?

What are the rules for attending weddings?

 

[concretecamper]

What are the rules for attending weddings?

So from the post you directed me to…what would you do?

 

[gracepoole]

So from the post you directed me to…what would you do?

I think the point is that what I might do and what you might do could differ – each of us is required to use prudential judgement.

 

[otjm]

So, your brother, a cradle Catholic, decides to marry a woman in a pentecostal service and is not granted permission by the Catholic Church. Is going to the service the correct thing to do?

On December 21, one of my first cousins died. His maternal great great grandparents came over from Holland - they were Catholic, and so was each generation until mine.

He was buried January 2 from a local Pentecostal church. There were more Catholics, and what is often call3ed “fallen away” Catholics at the funeral service than non-Catholics. I attended.

The decision to attend was fairly simple. I seriously doubt that any non-Catholics at the service were scandalized. And the “fallen away” Catholics know I am an active Catholic, as do the active Catholics who attended.

The decision to attend a wedding may be a bit different. Many people feel that in attending the wedding which you note is a sign that you accept/support/see no difference than if it were a Catholic wedding. If that issue comes up in a discussion, I would not hesitate to disabuse them of the notion. On the other hand, I would never start a conversation concerning that matter in the hopes that I could expound on my thoughts; that is not the place or the time.

This is your brother. I have no idea, from what you have said, what your brother was taught about the Church, about the Church’s views of marriage and of sacrament, nor do I know what he actually understood. The issue of invincible ignorance is all part of the equation.

This is your brother. You have to decide what effect the decision may have on him and your connection. Many people feel that a punitive, rejective attitude towards a sibling will bring the sibling around. My own personal observation is to the contrary; that it drives a wedge between siblings. Whether that weighs into the decision is your call. Going to the wedding is not going to get him to have an epiphany and come back to the Church. Whether over the years in the future your relationship with him can assist him in rectifying the issue, neither you not I know. But as I noted, my observation is that driving a wedge between the two of you generally doesn’t.

 

[concretecamper]

I think the point is that what I might do and what you might do could differ – each of us is required to use prudential judgement.

So it’s all relative? Truth…or right and wrong is never relative!

 

[otjm]

So it’s all relative? Truth…or right and wrong is never relative!

Interesting response. Certainly not what I said.

You want a black and white answer; the Church has not given one; it calls for prudential judgment, which means that there is not one absolute black and white answer.

Your question is akin to asking if it is immoral to shoot someone. Sometimes it is, sometimes it may immoral to not do so. And no, that is not “situational ethics”. that is a prudential judgment based on the Commandments.

Gracepoole answered your question with an attachment - did you read it? If you did, since you are the one who has to make the decision, why are you asking someone else what they would decide? Is this a game of seeing how many take one side or the other, and then going with that side? That is not making a prudential judgment; it is asking others to make the decision for you.

I have given you the best answer I can - which is also in line with the article referenced. You seem to not like that, and want an absolute answer. Since the Church doesn’t give one, then you are going to have to take responsibility for your choice.

Don’t misunderstand; I thoroughly understand the dilemma. But this is not something you get to pin on others, or the Church; it is your call. There may be family pressure on one side or the other - or on both sides. Ultimately, none of those people live your life - you do, and you are responsible for making the choice.

People want the Church to make decisions for them; then they are not responsible for the result. They can blame it on the Church - "The Church told me (I had to) (I had to not) do this act. But more often than not, the Church does not answer that way. The Church gives guidance; we have to make the choice.

The Church does say that some acts are intrinsically evil. This is not one of them.

 

[concretecamper]

Interesting response. Certainly not what I said.

You want a black and white answer; the Church has not given one; it calls for prudential judgment, which means that there is not one absolute black and white answer.

Your question is akin to asking if it is immoral to shoot someone. Sometimes it is, sometimes it may immoral to not do so. And no, that is not “situational ethics”. that is a prudential judgment based on the Commandments.

Gracepoole answered your question with an attachment - did you read it? If you did, since you are the one who has to make the decision, why are you asking someone else what they would decide? Is this a game of seeing how many take one side or the other, and then going with that side? That is not making a prudential judgment; it is asking others to make the decision for you.

I have given you the best answer I can - which is also in line with the article referenced. You seem to not like that, and want an absolute answer. Since the Church doesn’t give one, then you are going to have to take responsibility for your choice.

Don’t misunderstand; I thoroughly understand the dilemma. But this is not something you get to pin on others, or the Church; it is your call. There may be family pressure on one side or the other - or on both sides. Ultimately, none of those people live your life - you do, and you are responsible for making the choice.

People want the Church to make decisions for them; then they are not responsible for the result. They can blame it on the Church - "The Church told me (I had to) (I had to not) do this act. But more often than not, the Church does not answer that way. The Church gives guidance; we have to make the choice.

The Church does say that some acts are intrinsically evil. This is not one of them.

I am sorry if you misunderstood me. I do not have this dilemma. I posed the question to highlight what I believe is the biggest change. I believe the biggest difference is relativism.

 

[commenter]

Previous posters have listed official changes in practice. There are also unofficial changes in practice, different patterns taken by some of the laity, sometimes condoned by clergy and religious.

1. The size of Catholic families shrank drastically over a few years, much of it due to contraception. The number of baptized Catholics “living together” or who have had sex outside marriage, is grown by a multiple I can’t even imagine.
2. The number of people going to Confession shrank dramatically in a few years. People forget that almost every Catholic Church was once booked up with long lines every Saturday, and many parishes had DAILY confessions.

In my opinion these two very unfortunate changes in practice, not at all intended by the Church, have had more impact than any of the intended changes in practice described in this thread; maybe more than all combined.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I am sorry if you misunderstood me. I do not have this dilemma. I posed the question to highlight what I believe is the biggest change. I believe the biggest difference is relativism.

Is it “relativism” or is it that people actually are encouraged to think, just as Jesus encouraged people of His day to think.

Who knows, maybe more will come to the conclusion that they have a God-given conscience inside of them and that their “conscience” is not contained in a book or books.

Ever heard the story of the Good Samaritan?

You probably have, the “term” has come into everyday use and there are even laws that use the terminology.

Do you or anyone else realize that the Samaritans of Jesus’s day were despised by the Jews and that the “good” Jews that ignored the one who needed help, ignored the one needing help because of “religious rules and regulations”?

Many people of today may not realize just how upset the “good religious” people of Jesus’s day would have been.

Many “good religious” people of today would react just as some of the “good religious” people of Jesus’s day did but they probably wouldn’t even see it in themself as they are putting their “rules and regulations”, their “dogma and doctrine” above what Jesus was so simply trying to say.

God didn’t call us to be “clones” but to be decent, thinking, acting human beings and to put it mildly, we all fall short, part of being a human, isn’t it?

 

[aragonjohn1]

What have been the ten biggest changes in Church teaching and practices from 1900 to the present?

one of the changes is the increasing number of catholics demographically - webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.catholicvote.org/the-demographics-of-a-changing-church-the-first-pope-from-the-americas/ a second is "The Church after the collapse of the religious unity in the West, struggle against heresy and infidelity, expansion in non-European countries (from beginning of sixteenth century to our own age).

(a) First Epoch: Origin and expansion of Protestantism; conflict with that heresy and reformation of ecclesiastical life (from 1521 to Treaty of Westphalia, 1648).
(b) Second Epoch: Oppression of the Church by state-absolutism, weakening of religious life through the influence of a false intellectual emancipation (from 1648 to the French Revolution, 1789).
(c) Third Epoch: Oppression of the Church by the Revolution; renewal of ecclesiastical life struggling against infidelity; progress of missionary activity (from 1789).
As regards the methodical treatment of the subject-matter within the principal divisions, most writers endeavour to treat the main phases of the internal and external history of the Church in such a manner as to secure a logical arrangement throughout each period. Deviations from this method are only exceptional, as when Darras treats each pontificate separately. This latter method is, however, somewhat too mechanical and superficial, and in the case of lengthy periods it becomes difficult to retain a clear grasp of the facts and to appreciate their interconnexion. Recent writers, therefore, aim at such a division of the matter within the different periods as will lay more stress on the important forms and expressions of ecclesiastical life (Moeller, Muller, Kirsch in his revision of Hergenröther). The larger periods are divided into a number of shorter epochs, in each of which the most important event or situation in the history of the Church stands out with distinctness " - newadvent.org/cathen/07365a.htm

as for the other eight i can only say that they could concern the increases/decreases in the many virtues and grace many try to obtain.

God bless

 

[concretecamper]

Do you or anyone else realize that the Samaritans of Jesus’s day were despised by the Jews and that the “good” Jews that ignored the one who needed help, ignored the one needing help because of “religious rules and regulations”?

Many people of today may not realize just how upset the “good religious” people of Jesus’s day would have been.

Many “good religious” people of today would react just as some of the “good religious” people of Jesus’s day did but they probably wouldn’t even see it in themself as they are putting their “rules and regulations”, their “dogma and doctrine” above what Jesus was so simply trying to say.

I would hardly call the 2 that passed by “good”.

 

[gracepoole]

I am sorry if you misunderstood me. I do not have this dilemma. I posed the question to highlight what I believe is the biggest change. I believe the biggest difference is relativism.

You think the Church’s teachings on prudential judgement make Her a fan of relativism? I’m not sure where to begin explaining what’s wrong with that…

 

[concretecamper]

You think the Church’s teachings on prudential judgement make Her a fan of relativism? I’m not sure where to begin explaining what’s wrong with that…

The teaching of the Church is the thing that has not changed.

 

[otjm]

The teaching of the Church is the thing that has not changed.

The teaching of the Church is that you may make a prudential judgment as to whether or not you go to the wedding. If you say you have no dilemma, and you posed the question to show your belief that the Church is engaged in relativism, then you may be in the wrong website. If you are implying that the Church’s position that this issue has changed, and what they say now is infected with Relativism, then you need to go back to what I was taught before Vatican 2 - that the Holy Spirit was promised to the Church, to guide it and to prevent the Church from ever teaching error in the matters of Faith and Morals.

If that was true before Vatican 2, then it has to be true now. And that, in the short of it, refutes any thought you may have that prudential judgment is a relativist change.

 

[concretecamper]

The teaching of the Church is that you may make a prudential judgment as to whether or not you go to the wedding. If you say you have no dilemma, and you posed the question to show your belief that the Church is engaged in relativism, then you may be in the wrong website. If you are implying that the Church’s position that this issue has changed, and what they say now is infected with Relativism, then you need to go back to what I was taught before Vatican 2 - that the Holy Spirit was promised to the Church, to guide it and to prevent the Church from ever teaching error in the matters of Faith and Morals.

If that was true before Vatican 2, then it has to be true now. And that, in the short of it, refutes any thought you may have that prudential judgment is a relativist change.

I am implying nothing. I said the teaching of the Church has not changed. It is solid as a “Rock”. The reletivism is not from the Magisterium.

And the teaching of the Church is that if a Catholic engages in a non sacramental marriage, he/she ends up living in adultery. I am sure you will find many who will use their “prudential judgement” to not rock the boat and attend being a witness and throw truth aside as a consequence. This is the relativism I mean.

 

[otjm]

I am implying nothing. I said the teaching of the Church has not changed. It is solid as a “Rock”. The reletivism is not from the Magisterium.

Likewise, the issue of whether or not you may go to the wedding is, according to the Church, a prudential judgment.

In other words, your use of the word “relativism” in regards to this matter is your incorrect understanding of what the Church teaches as well as what it taught.

Keep in mind that some of the issues have to do with Canon law, and Canon law, since it is disciplinary as opposed to doctrinal, can and does change, and has always been subject to change.