Times Change, the Church does not

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CutlerB

Guest
Is it safe to say that, in view of Cardinal Martini’s passing away and the words he uttered that the Church was “200 years behind”, it is not the Church that has to adapt its teaching to the time, but rather the times must go by the Church?

Here in Germany, there’s this attitude towards the Catholic Church like: “Oh, she’s just a bunch of old men in fancy garments who cling to outdated thought and traditions.” That view is always present in the media, as there is almost never an occasion in which the Church comes out in a “positive light”. There’s always something they can find.

Would you agree with the thing I think when I see such reports: “It’s not the Church who has gone astray, it’s you who criticise the Church for not being in line with common practice”? (Sounds fairly accusing, I know.)

I’d be interested in hearing any response and thoughts. Thank you.
 
Would you agree with the thing I think when I see such reports: “It’s not the Church who has gone astray, it’s you who criticise the Church for not being in line with common practice”? (Sounds fairly accusing, I know.)
I couldn’t agree more. While it is sad that the Cardinal has died, it isn’t sad that his particular “progressive” mentality has been quashed. We’ve seen what 40 years of progressive ideas have given the world; don’t people think that it’s time that the pendulum swung the other way?
 
I couldn’t agree more. While it is sad that the Cardinal has died, it isn’t sad that his particular “progressive” mentality has been quashed. We’ve seen what 40 years of progressive ideas have given the world; don’t people think that it’s time that the pendulum swung the other way?
This whole idea that the Church has to teach what the people want it to teach is absurd. The forums on the news sites (especially Spiegel Online) are full of that attitude and obviously fail to grasp the mission of the Church: Preach the Gospel of Our Lord. And that Gospel does not change according to the Zeitgeist. I read a quote matching that recently, but I’ve forgotten it.
 
This whole idea that the Church has to teach what the people want it to teach is absurd. The forums on the news sites (especially Spiegel Online) are full of that attitude and obviously fail to grasp the mission of the Church: Preach the Gospel of Our Lord. And that Gospel does not change according to the Zeitgeist. I read a quote matching that recently, but I’ve forgotten it.
This also happens in American media. They fail to ever speak about how much more educated kids are (on average) who attend Catholic schools (and actually want to learn), over those who attend public schools. Or how many Catholic hospitals there are to tend to and aid the sick and dying. I could go on, but the media has a liberal agenda for the most part, and will always seem to have it out for the Church. Any chance to bash the Church has everyone in the media running around to try and get the story while there are many more pressing issues going on in our world.
 
Is it safe to say that, in view of Cardinal Martini’s passing away and the words he uttered that the Church was “200 years behind”, it is not the Church that has to adapt its teaching to the time, but rather the times must go by the Church?

Here in Germany, there’s this attitude towards the Catholic Church like: “Oh, she’s just a bunch of old men in fancy garments who cling to outdated thought and traditions.” That view is always present in the media, as there is almost never an occasion in which the Church comes out in a “positive light”. There’s always something they can find.

Would you agree with the thing I think when I see such reports: “It’s not the Church who has gone astray, it’s you who criticise the Church for not being in line with common practice”? (Sounds fairly accusing, I know.)

I’d be interested in hearing any response and thoughts. Thank you.
First of all, “time” has nothing to do with it. Only people change things. Over the last 40 years, what did we get? Pornography, sexual situations in movies and television, more people living together and having sex but not being married. And was the Church behind any of this?

Allow me to be blunt: Lots of orgasms are good. Having children is not good. I am young and doing relatively well financially, so why not ignore Church teaching? Get all the orgasms I want, buy things I want. Why should I struggle with children for at least 18 years? I will be stuck, I’ll have fewer opportunities to have fun, and then I’ll be old. The Church was behind this?

And the movies and television are getting worse. The Church encouraged this?

A long time ago, someone in France wrote the following on a building: “It is forbidden to forbid!”

And think about it, the word Freedom was constantly being used. But freedom from what? Apparently, Church teaching, especially regarding the proper use of sex. Do human beings have a mind? Do each one of us decide when to do something? In regard to sex - apparently not. We are forced to believe that self-control is impossible. That we need to pay money for condoms and pills and foam and all the products, and for what? Why?

There was a time which I lived through in the United States where the newspapers and television and movies reflected and respected Christian values. Television was called a welcomed guest in our home, today - and forgive my bluntness - in too many cases, it is now a pimp.

Peace,
Ed
 
The Catholic Church can’t change canon law or doctrine like amending the Constitution(?).
The culture has certainly changed, but that doesn’t mean the church should adapt to the changes if one see’s fit. Have Protestant churches influenced the way Catholics view the liturgy or feel about moral issues of today?
 
I believe that! 🙂 YAY … sound doctrine!

:confused: I don’t believe I know where the altar rail went or where the tabernacle is now though.

Changes can be made. (Hey look! An altar girl!)

But sometimes the people at the forefront act like they are changing a diaper! :sad_yes::tsktsk::nope:

:love: - I love my illustrated Baltimore Cathechism for kids!

**(JUST commenting on the title. Not the Church in Germany, the late Cardinal etc.) **
 
We’re told, “All things in moderation,” but, being human, we tend to be fairly exuberant and enthusiastic about our “likes,” and to be outspoken, accusatory–maybe even demonstrative-- about our “dislikes.”

Even in Biblical times youth rebelled against their parents and the local mores (religious and societal teachings). Those youth who never quite grew up continued to rebel, extending their adolescence into their adult years, embroiling themselves and those who were guilty of loving them in one mentally anguishing escapade after another. Public humiliation, shunning, lashing, stoning, torture, and beheading were not unusual.

Although modes of punishment in much of the world have changed, rebellion to authority is still rampant. The difference mainly seems to be the degree to which people find themselves civilized and attuned to their inner religious identities.

In countries governed by rule of law, those who have some regard for the wisdom of their parents and others in authority: religious, education, law, and governmental officials; an understanding of their local, national, and world histories; and an ability to see themselves in relation to others in society tend to go with the flow, but they may openly examine new ideas respectfully while acting within the bounds of accepted norms and working to effect changes within the parameters of existing laws. This loosely describes a republic, where inhabitants are free to pursue what brings them satisfaction, according to their individual endeavors and limitations. Paramount to them, though, is that they want to be seen as good in the sight of their fellow citizens and in the sight of God. The devil prods wherever possible of course, but he doesn’t get the upper hand.

By contrast, the narcissistic, perpetual adolescents, encouraged by Satan himself, must throw a temper tantrum to get their own way because nobody understands how laws should be as well as they do! They have no respect for any opinions other than their own. Instead, they have nothing but contempt for others with different thoughts and goals. They don’t respect the rights of others, they defy any chain of command in authority, and they’re willing to use any means possible to achieve their goals. They, therefore–because they have no social restraints and are propelled as far as their own audacity will permit–should dictate to the others of us–restraining our activities, rights, purchases, belongings, even our thoughts, etc. (Hey! We just can’t see how brilliant they are!) So these pathetic, overgrown, disobedient children who openly defy, protest, etc. (even to the point of blatantly trying to overturn churches, schools, and governments, with Satan’s assistance in shotgun pattern across the country, or countries), persist, and often triumph, resulting in one form or another of despotic rule and an end to the individual’s right to pursue life according to his own wishes, limitations, and endeavors–socialism to one degree or another.

History repeats itself. All of life that does not run smoothly is due to the influence of Satan. Life is a continual good-vs-evil battle. Each little win for Satan causes more struggle for followers of Christ. Satan is willing to bide his time to get as big a prize (souls burning in hell) as possible.

That’s where our free will comes into play. Do we choose Christ? Do we plod faithfully according to the dictates of our consciences as we’ve formed them through our understanding of God, roadblocking Satan where possible? Or do we defy God? Do we work steadily to present a role model to others, even if no one else does? Or do we go against God’s will and try to blend with the errant world? Do we stand up and be counted? Or do we join the crowd?..The Holy Trinity?..Or Satan?
 
Altar girls?

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10595

And the other changes. Nothing in Church documents about those.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Including the removal of altar railings.

Peace,
Ed
These aren’t DOCTRINAL things nor found in the Creed but:

I have been in a Catholic Church that had removed the kneelers (removed - not just didn’t INCLUDE them in a new building). Hurt my knees. More penitential though I guess.

The pit of my stomach thought it was SO WRONG to move the tabernacles from front, high and center in the Church to somewhere - off to the side, BEHIND the congregation, in a small insignificant room with all the sacred artwork of a broom closet, or … OUTSIDE the Church (but under the same roof as the Church so … as far as one could go and still claim you were not “tabernacle free”. I have seen all those “solutions”? “innovations”?

My objection of course is not an unbalanced affection for a container, but the impression that the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Christ has been demoted … in favor of …:confused:

Altar railings: I received my first communion at one. “Every knee shall bow and tongue will tell that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

I like them. There wasn’t one at the Last Supper probably, and many Churches have now been built without them and I wouldn’t go so far as to think the Masses said in them were invalid or any such thing.

But I like them, and if asked I’d say "yes, bring back the altar rails, kneeling at communion, tabernacle to the front and center (however many genuflections that might inspire) and … a separate class of altar servers for altar boys - with an eye to them possibly being future seminarians and priests.

🙂
 
Hi Cutler,

Your question has been answered by Pope John in his speech on the opening of the Second Vatican Council:
The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.
saint-mike.org/library/papal_library/johnxxiii/opening_speech_vaticanii.html

Therefore the doctrine does not change, but the way of presenting it must change according to the mentality, the media and other circumstances of the times. Whether we are 20 or 200 years behind is debatable.

Verbum
 
The Catholic Church can’t change canon law or doctrine like amending the Constitution(?).
The culture has certainly changed, but that doesn’t mean the church should adapt to the changes if one see’s fit. Have Protestant churches influenced the way Catholics view the liturgy or feel about moral issues of today?
What a relief… Because I really need to buy some indulgences.
 
Hi Cutler,

Your question has been answered by Pope John in his speech on the opening of the Second Vatican Council:

saint-mike.org/library/papal_library/johnxxiii/opening_speech_vaticanii.html

Therefore the doctrine does not change, but the way of presenting it must change according to the mentality, the media and other circumstances of the times. Whether we are 20 or 200 years behind is debatable.

Verbum
I agree, technically. The objective of the Council was to adapt the ways in which the Church communicated the Doctrines of the Faith to be relevant to the times. The Council produced documents that could have facilitated that. The post-conciliar implementation of those Vatican II Constitutions has been a bumpy ride (past 50 years or so) and in the excitement to adapt the way teachings were communicated, sometimes the teachings themselves fell subject to adaptation so as to be relevant in a manner relative to the times. Trying to make an unchangeable Doctrine relative to the present times was not the aim of the Council and it could not be done without somewhat blurring Church teachings. This caused some confusion amongst the faithful and even the clergy with “innovations” being tossed in here and there throughout the years. Many of the changes noticeable to the laity were not mandated by the Council Fathers, but were inventions of the post-conciliar liturgists, theologians, members of the clergy etc. who were charged with implementing the Constitutions. The actual Doctrines never changed, but it was perceived by some of the laity (and clergy for that matter) as though they did. IMHO I think the Church is getting back on track and is headed in the right direction.
 
If the Church was praised by the media, and this culture then I would be worried. Since it is increasingly being persecuted by both the media, and this pagan culture I am confident It is firmly being led by the Holy Spirit, and right where it should be. The world, and the church are antithetical to one another, and the day that is not true is the day the church has compromised itself.

John 15:18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.”
 
If the Church was praised by the media, and this culture then I would be worried. Since it is increasingly being persecuted by both the media, and this pagan culture I feel confident She is right on track.

John 15:18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.”
Of course, so do I. On the other hand, almost all religions I know of will claim something like that. Most prominently the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The reports about the book “His Holiness” by Gianluigi Nuzzi, who has collected the documents stolen from the Vatican in it, though, do show some problems within the Church.

Although I don’t like referencing the German Spiegel for their obvious bias against religion, but the Catholic Church and the Pope in particular, they list some of those issues emerging from said documents. What’s your take on that?
 
Of course, so do I. On the other hand, almost all religions I know of will claim something like that. Most prominently the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The reports about the book “His Holiness” by Gianluigi Nuzzi, who has collected the documents stolen from the Vatican in it, though, do show some problems within the Church.

Although I don’t like referencing the German Spiegel for their obvious bias against religion, but the Catholic Church and the Pope in particular, they list some of those issues emerging from said documents. What’s your take on that?
I haven’t read that book, but there is no doubt there is corruption within the church, and If I remember correctly one of the popes said Satan has risen to the highest levels in the Vatican. The Church in 2000 years has not compromised on faith and morals, and I believe Jesus words to be true “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18 It is precisely because of Christ’s promise that no matter how much corruption arises within the Church hell will not prevail against it.

It is rather extraordinary when you think about it. The Catholic Church is the oldest continuous institution on earth, and through all the ages, wars, cultures, philosophies, and popes of questionable moral character it has remained intact, and never compromised on issues of faith and morals. That in itself is an extraordinary testament that Jesus Christ is who He said He was, and is able to keep His promise.
 
The Catholic Church can’t change canon law or doctrine like amending the Constitution(?).
The culture has certainly changed, but that doesn’t mean the church should adapt to the changes if one see’s fit. Have Protestant churches influenced the way Catholics view the liturgy or feel about moral issues of today?
To the last question - Yes.

Not the Church itself, but individual Catholics - Absolutely. The Protestant ideaology of adapting and accepting individual views to fit your own personal beliefs or intuitions is why society has eroded to the low point it is at today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top