What is the reasoning for slow change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Awardables
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Awardables

Guest
When you speak with day-2-day Catholics, there seems to be a consensus for some modernization and appropriate change to the Catholic Church. As an example, allowing women to be Priests. I’m not suggesting that, this topic is a universally agreed to thought of positive change, just one example of what one might think is a good idea.

But as my title suggests, what is the rationale or reason behind the slowness or resistance of the Catholic Church to change this “rule” to keep up with modern society?
 
Last edited:
Quite simply, because theChurch does not change to “keep up” with the times. It does not change for society or for people’s opinions, or to go along with the decline of morals, or popular trends. The Church continues to change, whenever it does, based on doctrine, scripture and (name removed by moderator)ut of the pope.
 
Last edited:
I understand that completely. But my question is more of a “why?” Meaning, humanity in general has never really responded well to “the heavy hand” and don’t you think that if the Church wants to continue to grow and continue to flourish that they have to in some way adapt? Taking it out of context, if the Church were a business, essentially they would be a business that didn’t listen to it’s “customers” and what happens, eventually, to a business that doesn’t listen to it’s customers? It goes out of business.
 
Interestingly… the Church isn’t a bussiness, nor a totally human organization.

The laws of the market doesn’t apply to her.
 
Last edited:
I see that point. But they do deal with and rely on Humans. And culture and humans are changing. I just think that if the Church continues to ignore that, or think that they are in some way above it. The future is unclear. Just my opinion, of course.
 
I see what you are saying. People are free to take their business elsewhere.

But I don’t think that your analogy is a good one. The Church is not a business. Perhaps if you look at the Church as a doctor. Yes, there will be people that go to different doctors with new medicines or new procedures that may down the line be found to not work as well or cause dangerous side effects. Will the traditional doctors go out of business? No, they will always be around. Just as the Church as she is, will continue. Maybe with small numbers, but she will continue.
 
Last edited:
To carry your analogy further, a business will fail if it doesn’t listen and respond to it’s customers. But it will also likely fail if it abandons it’s primary purpose. Very few businesses can go from making cars to making candy successfully. They keep making cars, they just try to do better. And they still make them out of the essential componenents.

The Church has to keep trying to make saints. They make them from essential components, eg it’s core doctrine, valid sacraments, and moral teaching. Just as a car manufacturer cannot make an engine out of silly string, the Church cannot have a valid Eucharist without an ordained male priest.
 
Let’s consider a change which is not impossible, such as use of the vernacular in Mass.

This is something which had been requested/desired for decades (that I know of) before V2. So why did it take so long?

Because the Church wants to get it right.

We know that what we have in place is right, so before changing it, we have to make sure the change is at least as right.
 
Awardables said:
what happens, eventually, to a business that doesn’t listen to it’s customers? It goes out of business.
Click to expand...
How many businesses have been around since circa 33 AD? Have there not been momentous and significant cultural changes since then? So why hasn’t the Church “gone out of business” in that time? Because the normal rules of business don’t apply to what is not a business.
 
The Church isn’t in the business of “keeping up with modern society”. It also doesn’t go around seeking “customers” to keep the doors open.

With your religion being listed as “Christian”, I’m guessing you’re coming at this from a different perspective, perhaps that of a Protestant minister who is trying to get people to attend his church. That’s not how the Catholic Church thinks.

By the way, what exactly is a “day-2-day Catholic”? Practicing Catholics have views all over the map and there are many, many Catholics who are not in favor of women priests. The secular media does not do a good job of representing all the Catholic views. They mostly just pick the controversial ones or those that make a good story.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. If so it should promote abortion, the gay movement, etc. The Church is in the business of promoting the truth, regardless of whether anyone likes it or not. And humans have always had a tendency to reject the most basic truth that she promotes: the existence of God. Maybe she should accommodate society there too and stop insisting on such unprofitable nonsense?
 
Last edited:
I don’t disagree. I’m just offering the view that there are small and modest changes that can be made that could potentially improve the Church without compromise to core values and beliefs. Is it reasonable to think that decisions made 2000 years ago are decisions that offer zero opportunity for improvement? That’s the point that I’m trying to make.
 
“day-2-day Catholic” meaning friends and family, vs. talking to a Bishop, Priest, Deacon etc … Someone who is a congregation member or a day-2-day person vs. someone who is working in the Church community on a daily basis.
 
Awardables said:
But as my title suggests, what is the rationale or reason behind the slowness or resistance of the Catholic Church to change this “rule” to keep up with modern society?
Click to expand...
The Church is not called to be relevant to modern society, the Church is called to be faithful to Christ. The assumption in your question (whether you realize it or not) is that modern society somehow has a moral claim on certain issues that trumps God’s revealed will for his people. It doesn’t. In fact, the world is in bondage to sin, death, and the devil and is actively opposed to God’s will. The Church stands as a beacon to proclaim both law and gospel to a world that needs to be convicted of sin, saved by faith in Christ, and brought into obedience with God’s will.
 
That would have been a lot clearer if you had used words – “day-to-day”.

D
 
For example? I am not sure what “small and modest changes” could be made that would stop people from going elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Awardables said:
I’m just offering the view that there are small and modest changes that can be made that could potentially improve the Church without compromise to core values and beliefs. Is it reasonable to think that decisions made 2000 years ago are decisions that offer zero opportunity for improvement?
Click to expand...
Is it reasonable to think that some non-Catholic stranger on the Internet knows better how to run God’s One Holy Catholic, Apostolic and True Church than the people who are in charge of it, whom God has put there?

What’s your expertise in this matter, besides talking to a handful of people who for all we know, don’t even practice their faith?
 
Awardables said:
“day-2-day Catholic” meaning friends and family, vs. talking to a Bishop, Priest, Deacon etc … Someone who is a congregation member or a day-2-day person vs. someone who is working in the Church community on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
The correct term for a person who isn’t a Bishop, Priest, Deacon is “Catholic layperson”. Not day to day Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top