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.”
Luther, Calvin and Zwingli thought otherwise.
“ye believe on him whom he hath sent...”
He is the teacher - the teacher’s function is to follow his instructions - to believe is TO DO his WILL
Our Father who art in heaven Hallowed be is name
Thy WILL BE DONE
Do- act - work
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
yes work...”this IS the work of God,that ye believe” John 6:29
I am well aware of Southerners, have only lived in 3 states. However, outside of Louisiana, there were very few Catholics in the South so the Democratic party in the North and Midwest, where most Catholic were, is where they landed.
In the South in the early 20th century, the Republican party was still associated with Lincoln and the Civil War or as some of the Southerners say, the War between the States.
Answer your own gotcha question, the protestants on these threads love to be their own papcy, so have at it. I will pray for you just as I do for the others that are spiritually bankrupt.
Redleghunter
Confession is a Sacrament, which is the normative means that God Gives Grace. It is also called the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Penance, each which have distinct but related meanings and express different aspects of the same Sacrament. To say that Confession of sins was not done in a verbal external matter is your views of the Bibical text. To start with, Christ called his Apostles [which means to be sent] and gave them Authority over unclean spirits [MT 10:1] and bind and loose [MT 18:18] and then Christ states as the Father sent him He sends them…he breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit, If you Forgive the sins of any they are forgiven, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained [JN 20:21-23] St Paul in his Letter to the Romans describes his ministry as a “priestly service of the Gospel [Romans 15:16] and he also writes “All this is from God who through Christ has reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation that is Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God [2 Cor 5:18-20] In the Letter of St. James, we again here that the presbyters of the Church [elders in some translations] are to be called if anyone is sick and the should be anointed with oil..and if he has committed any sins, they will be forgiven…Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another [James 5: 13-20
So From these passages, the Catholic Church has understood that the normative means thru which God wanted sinners to be reconciled to him in the Church, his Body, and by having the sinner make a public confession. The priest is the visible sign and the minister of the sacrament but it is God that forgives sins, which is in essence what the NT text above are pointing to In addition, the notion of Penance is rooted in both the OT and NT. For example, James 5:19-20 states my brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. 1 Peter 4:8 states “Above all hold unfailing your love for one another since love covers a multitude of sins” So Penance, praying for someone who hurt you, doing acts of charity do have some association to cover a multitude of sins, not all sins, which in and of itself points to a distinction of sins in the NT 1 John 1:8-9 states that “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful to and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness
Now, all of the NT epistles were written to those already baptized and part of the Church So asking them to confess their sins is consistent with the need of some form of Confession for sins committed after Baptism.
Now, you have your views of the NT and I have mine which are in line with the Catholic Church. For me, how did those Christians throughout history and those closest to the NT interpret the NT and they do consistently mention confession and penance
For example:
The Didache, written in the late 1st century states “Confess your sins in the Church..on the Lords Day, Gather to Break Bread and give thanks [Eucharist] after confessing your transgressions [Didache 4: 14]. St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 107 AD told those that those who had broken from the Church that in the exercise of penance, return to the unity of the Church….For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all of them repent and the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God and communion with the Bishop {Letter to the Philadelphian’s]
St. Ireneaus, writing around 185-189 AD in Against Heresies states the Gnostics have deluded many women. Their consciences have been branded with hot iron. Some of these woman make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this and in silence , as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between two courses.”
In the 2nd century we see more of the same:
Saint Hippolytus of Rome writes “[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).
In addition, in the Second Century we have the writings of Origen and Saint Cyprian of Carthage. Origen writes “”[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).
Saint Cyprian of Carthage writes “The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him” (The Lapsed 15:1–3 (A.D. 251]).
“Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord” (ibid., 28).
“[S]inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition
I could continue to go into the 4th century and cite St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, Saint Ambrose of Milan, St. Jerome and St. Augustine. St. Basil writes “It is necessary to confess our sins to whom the dispensation of God’s Mysteries [Sacraments] is entrusted. John Chrysostom cited John 20: 21-23 and talks about the Priests given the power to forgive sins and hear confessions. [The Priesthood, 387 AD]. Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine make similar arguments about confession and penance. Jerome’s arguments are based on two of his commentaries, one on Ecclesiastes and the other on Saints Matthew. Saint Augustine is telling the catechumens [those about to be baptized] in his sermon on the Creed that in the Church, there are 3 ways of in which sins are forgiven, Baptism, Prayer and the “Greater humility of Penance!!!”
In summary, while you don’t think there is such as thing as confession, the NT does show it and the early Church Fathers, the ones who defended orthodox Doctrine related to the Trinity, Christ, etc, are the same ones who wrote about Confession and Penance.
You can find translations of the Fathers on line at newadvent.org, a Catholic site or the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, a Reformed cite.
I am saying the scriptural evidence we have says otherwise. So does the Greek lexicon for “brethren.” It literally means brother. I looked for cousin but did not see it for G80-Adelphos.
One of the links above has a detailed explanation of adelphos
Sorry, but your lexicon states that. Brother is used numerous ways in the Bible, and it does not always mean blood brother. Nowhere does it say that those were Mary’s Sons.
St. Jerome in his work against Helvidious, goes against the view that Mary had other children. He was the greatest bible scholar in the history of the Church, fluent in Hebrew, Latin and Greek and lived in the 4th century.
Now, going even further back, with respect to Mary’s perpetual Virginity, there was no Church Father, Bishop of Church Council that interpreted the NT in way that led to the conclusion that Mary had any other children besides Christ. In fact, as early as Origen [185-254], in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew states that Mary was ever-virgin and the tradition that was passed down was that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were Joseph’s children by another woman as again, nowhere does it state that Mary was their Mother. Even before Origen’s time, St. Irenaus in his work “Against Heresies [circa 185 AD]” refers to Mary as “Mary the Virgin” and before that, St. Justin Marytr in his work Dialogue with Trypho [circa 155AD] refers to Mary as the “Virgin Mary” and St. Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Church at Ephesus [circa 107AD] speaks of the Virginity of Mary.
Now, it is interesting for the Fathers of the 2nd century to describe someone as a “Virgin” if they were not one as that is a “binary” description [either one is a Virgin or not]. One could refer to Mary as something other than “Virgin” and still maintain the doctrine of the “Virgin Birth” by clearly stating Mary conceived Christ by the Power of the Holy Spirit. So what we have is clear teaching from Apostolic Tradition from a large consensus of the Church Fathers affirming the perpetual virginity of Mary.
So the notion of Mary as ever-virgin was well established in the 2nd/3rd century. As we move to the 4th century, we see more clear statements from all the orthodox Church Fathers of the West and East. For example, St. Athanasius [295-373] in his work “Discourse against the Arians{360AD}” speaks of Mary as “ever-virgin.” St. Gregory of Nysaa [335-396] in his work “Virginity {370AD}” speaks of Mary and her perpetual virginity. St. Ephiphanius of Salamis [315-402] in his work “The Well Anchored Man {374AD}” speaks of Mary as the “Holy and Ever Virgin Mary”. St Gregory of Nazianz in his work “Oratation on Holy Lights {381AD}”speaks or Mary as the “Virgin Mary”
St. Ambrose of Milan in his work “The consecration of a virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary” written in 392AD is a treatise defending Mary’s perpetual virginity.
St. Jerome [347-420] writing against the heretic Helvidius [which I alluded to earlier] “blasts him” for proposing Mary was not ever-Virgin and Helvidius reliance on Tertullian, who had left Catholic Orthodoxy for the Montanist heretical group is clearly articulated by Jerome that Tertullian’s embracing of the Montanist meant he was no longer a man of the Church. Jerome also clearly states, nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we ever read that Mary had other children.
St. Augustine’s writings [354-430] are filled with statements affirming Mary’s perpetual virginity. For example, in his Sermons [391-430] he speaks of Mary as “Virgin conceiving, Virgin bearing, Virgin pregnant, Virgin bringing forth, and Virgin-perpetual”. In another works entitled “On Virginity” written circa 401 AD, he writes in reference to Christ and Mary that in being born of a Virgin, who chose to remain a virgin, Christ wished to affirm Virginity without imposing it. In another work entitled “Heresies” written in 420 AD, he writes “heretics called Antidicomarities are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined with her husband”.
St. Cyril of Alexandria writing around the time of the Council of Ephesus (431AD) in a work entitled “Against those who do Not wish to confess that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God” writes that Christ kept his Mother a Virgin even after her child-bearing, which was done for none of the other saints”
So while the need to Define Mary as the Mother of God resulted in that being clearly dogmatized at the Council of Ephesus, as it related to a Christological heresy [Nestorianism], the clear teaching of the Church Fathers on the perpetual virginity of Mary was so well taught that it was never challenged that it needed to be hammered out at a Council, although it is clear the Council of Ephesus in using the title of “Holy Virgin” clearly is a dogmatic statement implicit in the Council of Ephesus 431AD.
In addition it seems to me that perhaps Luther and Calvin were well versed enough in Church History and the Fathers to realize that the only groups to challenge Mary’s perpetual virginity were the Anticicomarites that St. Augustine referred to [the name literally means against-Mary] and that sect evolved from the Ebionities, a 2nd century sort of Gnostic sect that ST. Ireneaus wrote against and folks like Tertullian in his Montanist period and Helvidius who St. Jerome wrote against.
So while Luther and Calvin did not put Mary’s perpetual virginity into their respective Confessions, they nevertheless did not refute Mary’s perpetual virginity since it was so clearly taught by all the orthodox Church Fathers who read the same NT texts that you and I read.
.
Wow! What research. Thank you.
I am sure Luther and Calvin had their reasons for supporting the perpetual virginity of Mary. None of which are derived from scriptures. The most clarity we get is in Matthew where Joseph is instructed not to touch Mary until Christ is born. Other than that we have no further information other than references to brothers and sisters later in the Gospels.
Redleg — Re-read this excellent post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3106141/posts?page=374#374
Please repeat after me ADELPHOS.
If you would like to discuss adelphos and how the brothers and sisters of Jesus in the Gospels are actually cousins or adopted, please present your case.
I will not quote a pope or any other mere man. I don’t even have to interpret:
John 9:1-4 NASB
As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “ It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work.
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.