Posted on 12/28/2013 3:59:04 PM PST by NYer
According to recent demographic surveys, it seems there are presently 30 million people in the U.S. who identify themselves as “former Catholics.” That figure is both surprising, and, for Catholics, disheartening.
Over the past 50 years or so, a profound change, other than that effected by Vatican II, has taken place in the Catholic Church. It might be described as the phenomenon of “vanishing Catholics.” The Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor, has identified four major challenges facing the Church today. First on his list is the exodus of young adults from the Church. According to recent demographic surveys, it seems there are presently 30 million people in the U.S. who identify themselves as “former Catholics.” That figure is both surprising, and, for Catholics, disheartening. It represents a little less than 10 percent of the total population of this country. It also means that had those persons remained Catholic, approximately one in three Americans would be identified as Catholic. Only two religious groups represent a larger percentage of the U.S. population: Protestants (cumulatively) and current Catholics.
This phenomenon is disheartening not only for bishops and priests, but also for faithful Catholics generally. Many older Catholics are saddened at the sight of their children and grandchildren abandoning the Church.
Questions naturally arise. What has caused such a massive defection? How might one account for this phenomenon? It hardly seems possible that any single factor could explain a phenomenon of such magnitude. Various reasons for people leaving the Church are well-known. Many of them have been operative from the earliest times of Christianity. In his first letter to Timothy, St. Paul reminds him that “The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times some will desert the faith and pay attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines …” (1 Tm 4:1-7). In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul speaks of dissensions and divisions among the faithful (1 Cor 1:10-16).
From the first centuries up to modern times, there have been doctrinal differences (heresies) which led to great numbers separating themselves from the Roman Catholic Church. Many others have left the Church for what can be described as practical reasons, rather than doctrinal differences.
Among the latter, there are many who separated themselves from the Church because of marriage problems. There are those who left because they became greatly dissatisfied with inadequate preaching, uninviting liturgy, and minimal hospitality in their parishes. It seems worth noting that expecting church attendance and public worship to be therapeutically satisfying often leads to disappointment and eventual alienation.
Not a few have left the Church because of real or perceived mistreatment by bishops or pastors. Reactions have a way of becoming overreactions. An overreaction to clericalism and paternalism in the Church resulted in autonomy becoming absolute. Evelyn Underhill offered a helpful analogy in this regard. She likened the Church to the Post Office. Both provide an essential service, but it is always possible to find an incompetent and annoying clerk behind the counter. Persons who expect all representatives of the Church to live up to the ideals proposed by the Church will typically become disillusioned and leave. Persons with such expectations would have left the Church of the Holy Apostles.
Most recently, a cause for many leaving the Church is the scandal of clergy sexual abuse. This has been a stumbling block not only for those directly affected, but for Catholics generally. Because of the questionable role played by a number of bishops, their moral authority is diminished. The time when bishops could command is past. Now, they can only hope to persuade and invite. Loyalty to bishops had been widely identified with loyalty to the Church. As the former loyalty diminished, so did the latter.
Clearly there are times when the Church is more of an obstacle than a help to faith. At Vatican II, the Council Fathers pointed out that the Church is always in danger of concealing, rather than revealing, the authentic features of Christ. Often enough, members of the Church’s leadership have been guilty of a sin typical of many religious teachers—namely, being more concerned about preservation of their authority than about the truth.
While specific reasons can be cited, it is helpful to recognize several underlying attitudes that are operative. (1) There is an anti-dogmatic spirit which is suspicious of the Church’s emphasis on fidelity to traditional teachings. (2) There is the widespread belief that one can be free to ignore, deny, or minimize one or more received doctrines without feeling compelled to break with the Church. (3) There is also the belief that, guided by their own conscience, regardless of how that matches—or fails to match—generally accepted Catholic teaching, persons can develop their own understanding of what it means to be Catholic. Someone has coined a phrase that describes persons with those attitudes, calling them “cafeteria Catholics,” i.e., those who pick and choose what to accept of official Catholic teaching and ignore the rest.
Two questions arise in the face of the phenomenon of “vanishing Catholics.” One question is of a more theological and ecclesial level: are those departed to be considered heretics or schismatics? A second question arises at the practical level: how can those who have left be reunited with the Church? Regarding the first question, it is worth noting that, while speaking of dissension and division among the faithful, and of separation from the community of believers, the New Testament does not make a distinction between heresy and schism. Since the definition of the Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction, it is difficult to see how there can be a schism that is not a heresy.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2089), heresy “is the obstinate, post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is, likewise, an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” Schism is “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” The Theological Dictionary, compiled by Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, defines heresy as “primarily an error in matters of faith. The heretic takes a truth out of the organic whole, which is the faith, and because he looks at it in isolation, misunderstands it, or else denies a dogma.” “Schism occurs when a baptized person refuses to be subject to the Pope, or to live in communion with the members of the Church, who are subject to the Pope.”
In any case, given the variety of reasons for people leaving the Church, the degree of separation, and especially assuming good will on the part of those leaving, it is difficult to classify them as heretics or schismatics. Church authorities have the right and the duty to take measures against heresy and schism when those become evident. Clear denial of a dogma cannot be tolerated. But between this and a purely private, material heresy, there are many shades. Not every challenge to accepted theology is heretical. There are many partial non-identifications that endanger faith and unity but do not rise to the level of schism. Nor does every act of disobedience to human laws in the Church imply schism.
While speculative questions about heresy and schism are significant and need to be addressed, they pale in comparison to the practical question of how those departed can be reunited with the Church. That question is as complex as are the reasons for people leaving the Church. That question is further complicated when one addresses the question of the underlying attitudes that are operative.
Obviously, the Church must work at removing any obstacles to reunion. With Vatican II, that work was begun. The Council recognized the Church is semper reformanda, always needing to be reformed. The actual return of individuals requires something more than an adjustment in Church practices or new programs. It is a matter of God touching the individual with his grace.
A final question that can prove troubling is how the massive defection from the Church is to be reconciled with God’s providence. This is simply one of many instances in which we are challenged to believe in an omnipotent God, who is also a loving, provident Father. Providence is not an occasional, intrusive, manipulative presence, but one that is with us both in tragedy and in joy, in the joy that consists not so much in the absence of suffering, as in the awareness of God’s presence. To find the strength to experience calmly the difficulties and trials that come into our lives is a tremendous challenge. If, however, we are able to do that, every event can be “providential.” In a sermon on the feast of the Ascension, Pope Leo the Great said: “For those who abandon themselves to God’s providential love, faith does not fail, hope is not shaken, and charity does not grow cold.”
There can be a very subtle, almost imperceptible temptation to think we know better than God how things should be. We can be like the naive little girl, who, in her prayers, told God that if she were in God’s place, she would make the world better. And God replied: “That is exactly what you should be doing.”
What is the third mystery of Fatima, CTrent1564, and who is keeping it?
Romans 8:28-39 NABRE
We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified; and those he justified he also glorified.
What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, how will he not also give us everything else along with him? Who will bring a charge against God’s chosen ones? It is God who acquits us. Who will condemn? It is Christ [Jesus] who died, rather, was raised, who also is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. What will separate us from the love of Christ?
Will anguish, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword? As it is written: “For your sake we are being slain all the day; we are looked upon as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we conquer overwhelmingly through him who loved us.
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
daniel1212:
Another Judas, it seems Judas had trouble with CHrist’s teaching about the Eucharist just has you do. See St. John’s Gospel Chapter 6. And what are you saying “Scriptural substantiation” what are you confirming, the doctrines conceived in your head???
I will stand with the Apostles, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, St. Ireneaus of Lyon, all who wrote against heretics and all who held to the Eucharist as a Sacrament of his Body and Blood. Clement of Rome wrote in the later 1st century, the rest wrote in the 2nd century. Polycarp was a pupil of St. John and Igantius of Antioch a pupil of Polycarp.
The Eastern Orthodox have the same view of the Eucharist as the Catholic Church. It is only arrogant American Protestant Christians [a segment of them] who think they have the orthodox truth. American Protestant Christianity is fundamentally no different that secular liberalism with its philosophical perspective. They elevate the individual to decide what is right and wrong and American Protestants do the same with the Doctrine and the Bible. Yes, there are squabbles in the Catholic Church but there is what the Church teaches. Its Creeds and Doctrines on Sacraments and Authority are the same, despite dissident Catholics.
You decided well I will go to this evangelical group. What is the basis for their beliefs. Where did they get their doctrines? Is what they teach in line with all the orthodox Church Fathers, the Great Councils of Nicea in 325 AD, Constantinopile in 381, Ephesus in 431, Chalcedon in 451?
My guess the answer is no.
I can try a keyword search on *rosary* in the online Bibles but doubt I will come up with much. I’ve never seen the word in any Bible I’ve ever read.
While Rome presumes it has universal jurisdiction, it cannot be the moderator in FR. But if you are not interested, then you should stop posting yourself. But since you cannot even format your posts to make distinction btwn your responses and what you are responding to, then i will not bother to try to parse it all, as you are not interested. And indeed, the fact is that RCs are discouraged from objectively examining evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of what Rome teaches. Which essentially often makes some of their posts intellectually dishonest.
Not sure who is keeping it? I thought Pope John Paul II released it back around 2000. And if you read the CCC I linked for you, nothing in it can supersede the deposit of faith and nothing in private revelations, such as Fatima, can belong in the “Deposit of Faith” Again, as stated in the CCC para 67, nothing in private revelations can improve or complete “CHRIST’s” definitive Revelation. All private revelations can do is help the Catholic faithful live more faithfully at a particular point in history.
So again, I will take the position of basic Christian Charity and assume your questions on this matter were legit. I hope my post cleared up officially how the Catholic Church views what is Public revelation, which ended with Christ and thus once the last Apostle died, it was closed [St. John being the last witness to Christ]. So there can be no new “public revelation” and there will be no new public revelation until Christ’s 2nd coming.
fair enough. I will not post to you any longer nor you to me.
“I went to Church and was “born again” like all good evengelicals. “
Or perhaps you just are a “worst” fallen away Christian who wants to bash what he left... to turn your earlier phrase.
” Then for the next 45 years or so I would go to church, sing and shout, and go home and listen to Hank Williams gospel music and get drunk. “
So it sounds like there was no fruit to confirm you ever experienced salvation...
Thanks for the heartfelt appeal. I do confess my sins when I sin against others. I go to them and ask for their forgiveness. I also forgive when those who wrong me, even if they don’t ask for forgiveness. Jesus set the example, I love Him, He is the Master so I will imitate Him. It won’t be anywhere close to His perfection but with the Holy Spirit’s conviction and strength I will drive on.
Now confessing sins to God, that should be done with daily prayers as the psalmists did. We pray to the Father through the Son and here is the scripture proof:
1 John 2:1-2 NABRE
My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one. He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.(NABRE)
I will say, there is much hubris here on this thread telling others to repent and go to confession. I am reminded of the Pharisee and Publican parable. Also first take the beam out of your eye before the speck in your brothers eye.
Finally, there is a difference between penance and repentance. Repentance is a turning away and penance implies self punishment. As Paul says “godly sorrow leads to repentance which leads to Salvation.”
Might I ask what was disrespectful in post 253? Scripture was quoted
Well, then, no, you are not like most Evangelicals. You may have been like some, but those I know who are truly born again testify to it with a changed life.
No change = no born again experience.
You cannot not be changed if you are born again. If you didn't change, you weren't born again.
James the brother of Jesus.
I was thinking more semi Pelagianism.
Jesus had no brothers.
The thing about the Catholic religion is that it appeals to all the senses. It looks so religious, so it looks so legitimate. Kind of like the Latvian Orthodox religion on the Seinfeld episode.
Actually the southerners and KKK remained strong demoncrats for a long time. Things were different in the North with the heavier immigration.
It’s not gotcha. When you make a concrete statement that spiritual illness leads to physical illness, then you should have an answer for a 3 year old child with leukemia.
You would either have to state the child has leukemia because of the parents sins or the child was not baptized. Those are the only Roman Catholic answers. Which is it?
Or you can retract your unwise remarks playing God and admit you don’t know because you can’t possibly see how God works in people both repentant and unrepentant. The one with cancer God is trying to reach; the other with cancer a faithful Christian having an Abraham moment in time.
How dare any of us try to figure out how God is weaving His tapestry.
Actually, the argument i was responding to here is one that is basically often made by RCs, that since "we gave you the Bible, why do you disagree with us."
But, insofar as you speak of "the stewards of Scripture" I fear you may be following yet another modernist error which is not actually what the Church is about. The true historic model of the Catholic faith is not about individual men interpreting the bible and presenting that as definitive, which your statement seems to imply. What matters is the Spirit speaking through the Church throughout history and all time, and that means that we look not to a pope, or even Sts. Augustine or Jerome or Abmbrose. Rather, we look for what has been accepted as true for all that time, and that means listening to the entire Church in history. Or at least that is how it is supposed to be
That is more the Easter Orthodox model, but in reality rather than minimizing the role of the pope and magisterium, both are exalted by Catholics due to their need for interpretation. And looking for what has been accepted as true for all that time is quite restricted with much of a full universal sense, and esp. at the time of the Reformation there was a lot of variance.
The claimed "unanimous consent " hardly ever actually true, if at all in much of a full sense. And there was and is later disagreement and need for interpretation as to what the Spirit speaking through the Church throughout history and all time.
Besides what Rome can justify under its theory of development of doctrine , the tradition-based "Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.
And due to wanting doctrinal certainty you have Trent, and later you have the ultramontanism that led to the formal declaration of papal infallibility, and emphasis on his full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. And who cannot be deposed without his consent. Which is the height of exaltation of the individual, often replete with royal titles,clothing and assertions of power. Quite contrary to what Christ taught in reproving such. (Mt. 23:5-11)
Individuals can err, including even great saints. If some interpretation from some important person, even a pope, contradicts what has been held from the beginning then guess what? It is not the true Catholic teaching, but just another novel innovation to be avoided.
That is superficial, much is interpretive. As the CE says, we judge the church fathers more than they judge us. Note also that there are different levels of magisterial teaching, and with varying levels of assent and dissent being allowed, but with infallible teaching being held as unable to err or dissent from. Yet there is no infallible list of what level each teaching falls under, while all teachings are subject to varying degrees of interpretation.
Thus in once century it can be declared,
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” And thus
schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart `into everlasting fire.
And having lost the unholy power of the sword of men, in another century it can be declared,
there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.
In this and other like things interpretation is much at work here, and which once again places an emphasis upon the magisterium.
Thus if you hang around here much, you will see RCs basically invoking the argument you thought was a bit of a loaded statement, and that i then refuted.
However, this is not true anymore....The same is true for councils, and rather than looking to whether they are orthodox to determine their ecumenical nature, we now find them being called such and therefore being accepted as true just because of the label. That is why nobody knows what real heresy is anymore. What was heresy a thousand years ago is what a pope is preaching today, and that is accepted as absolutely true because of who is saying it.
Oh, it seems you are somewhat confirming some of what i said. Are you SSPX or something? The question is, on what basis did souls have assurance John the Baptist and then the Lord were of God. But it is too late to write much more now. Good night.
You can interpret it the way you like but the NT says otherwise and so does the lexicon:
Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.