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.”
The closest you can come to “brothers” meaning “cousins” in the NT is “kin.”
“Kin” can mean many things. I just find it hard to dig deep in the lexicon for something else interpreters have clearly used for English “brothers.” It is similar the lexicon gymnastics used to say “until” does not really mean “until.”
I will caution the same reasoning and lexicon twisting gymnastics are used by the non-trinitarians and second coming of Christ “already happened” preterist crowd.
It is also odd given the wonderful 2000 year history of claimed Roman Catholic doctrinal purity touted here, that not one died in the wool Roman Catholic is participating in the Trinity debate going on here on the RF. Come on over, we would love the company:)
Chapter and verse?
“was conversant in Greet, Latin and Aramaic and he was only a couple of centuries shy of Christ Himself - Does your pastor have those credentials?”
My professors have that and more. They also taught my pastor, btw.
Having answered your question, I point out that credentials are never a substitute for truth.
I looked at Revelation chapter 21 and verse 27 and there is nothing involving the apostles. But since you said “Rev, 21-27”, I then looked at chapter 22 (the last chapter FYI) and still nothing. FWIW Revelation only has 22 chapters and there is no chapter 27.
All interesting stuff which misses the point I made. And I studied more church history in seminary than I care to remember. In terms of volume it was a lot of work!
Genesis - Eve used her Free Will to say yes to Satan. Do you think Eve was a robot????
... Btw, my grandfather was from Messina
Union - you went to seminary? Was your history biased? How did it present the Church because mid 1500’s started the deformation oops reformation
Have you read a real Church History - have you read Aquinas at all
No substitute - however did they fast and pray in the desert AND were just a few centuries from Christ himself and the languages were in use as he lived??? That has to count!!
Read about St. Jerome - just read it!!!
Look I am sorry - it is just the one that says nothing impure can enter
We read church writings as original sources. We also studied every major doctrine as it developed in church history - again, reading original sources.
It was more time invested than any other course during my program. Valuable, but difficult to carry.
“AND were just a few centuries from Christ himself “
Centuries!
brothers/cousins
On the street the ones in the gang are all brothers - If Christ had a blood line though his brothers we would know it - the geneologists would have figured it out and it would be out there
OK he was 347 but that is a heck of a lot closer than thousands
sorry - a thousand
I am not sure what you disagree with,or that the role of the pope and magisterium are exalted by Catholics due to their need for interpretation.
What i meant in the second second part refers to Roman Catholicism while what you had described is indeed more the Easter Orthodox model, for you said "we look not to a pope" in contrast to it being "about individual men interpreting the bible and presenting that as definitive" (which is not exactly what i meant, but the pope and magisterium defining what Scripture and tradition mean).
Rome does direct souls to look to the pope, and thus even here we daily are given updates on the latest speech or action by the pope.
In contrast, the EOs reject papal infallibility and his having power he can exercise unhindered.
But it is the Catholic approach to doctrine and dogma, and is why the Church was such a stalwart of dogmatic reliability for almost 2000 years.
Actually, while it has upheld certain core truths such as expressed in the Apostles Creed, and which evangelical faith has also historically upheld and contended for without even a central magisterium, the Catholic approach to doctrine and dogma, in which the church, not Scripture is supreme, has led to the perpetuation of extraScriptural and unBiblical traditions, as well as disagreements and formal division over what tradition, Scripture and history teaches. Including the role and power of the the pope, among many other things. (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html)
The abandonment of that truly Catholic understanding of the faith has created all the chaotic dissonance of recent past.
Leaving you in the desert, but while i do not see any church as matching the prima NT church in purity, power and passion, yet the essence of the church is the gospel of grace, in which souls are convicted that they are damned+destitute sinner, fit for Hell not Heaven, and unable to escape the former or merit the latter, but must look with contrite heart to the Divine Son of God, trusting the Lord Jesus to save Him by His blood expense and credit.
But this preaching and regeneration the church has its members, versus a church which imagines the road to glory as as usually beginning with sprinkling water on an innocent infant makes him formally justified by interior holiness, and usually end with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering mythical purgatory.
The Church has held and taught the apostolic faith handed down through the Spirit, and at times it was largely a minority one...Your unanimous consent is not, and has never been relevant.
That is not my claim, but Rome's: "nor will I ever receive and interpret them [the Scriptures] except according to [evidently contrary to] the unanimous consent of the fathers." (Vatican 1 Profession of faith) It chooses who the fathers are, if not infallibly, then what constitutes unanimous.
This is a very strange assertion which causes me to wonder if you actually read my above post, or the previous one to which you replied.
I was responding to it as i read it, as if it were defending the Roman church like others.
No, I am a layman. I have never been to any traditionalist services because I have spent my 40 years in the desert. But, I do believe that the Church didn't fall out of the sky in 1964, or 1864 for that matter. Anyone hoping to understand the faith must look beyond their own culture and their own contemporary time and seek the truth which is always held.
Agreed, but the church is the body of Christ, which is manifested by faith in Christ which works by love, but with both Corinthian believers and Philippians types. Often it was even more of a remnant than other times, and it was and it "troubled on every side, yet not distressed; perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed," (2 Corinthians 4:8-9) to the glory of God.
In a revealed religion, such as Christianity, tradition is not an option, but requisite. If you sever yourself from the faith of history you cannot know the historic Christ.
Of course there is tradition, that of Scripturally based tradition such as what "modesty" meant, but are not as doctrines such as forbid fornication or even the basically literal hermeneutic behind such prohibitions. And which depend upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation for their veracity.
In contrast is that of making oral tradition with Scripture, and the church as the supreme infallible authority on what both mean. By such elevation of tradition you have traditions of men perpetuated, from prayer to departed saints, which is not supported by Scripture, to papal infallibility, purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, and other traditions of Mariology, a pastors distinctively titled sacerdotal "priests," justification and regeneration via paedobaptism, literally consuming the Lord to gain spiritual life, etc.
That is true for people who call themselves Catholic as much as it is for all believers.
Then they would not be believers if they did not subscribe to them, but holding to such traditions as above is what is contrary to being a believer.
From the Latin Vulgate: Mark 3:31
et veniunt mater eius et fratres et foris stantes miserunt ad eum vocantes eum
In the DRA:
31 And his mother and his brethren came; and standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
In the NABRE:
31m His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him.
Of course there is a footnote here which refers the NABRE reader to Mark 6. In that footnote (I am sure you have an NABRE study Bible as I do) then goes into the gymnastics to explain how the “adelphos” reference should be understood within the context of the Semitic languages actually used in the time. Which allows for other “kin” types like uncles, nephews, cousins, and half-brothers etc.
You would think the good Catholic translators of the Latin would not use ‘fratres’ in these passages given they would no doubt know the implications of the widespread understanding of Mary’s perpetual virginity. But then again in the Latin, they could have used the exact word for cousin or kin or family members other than brothers or sisters.
As I stated in previous threads on this topic...Mary was indeed a Virgin when “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”(Luke 1). We know that as fact because it is in the text. Afterwards, not so clear other than:
Matthew 1:
25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.(DRA)
So there is that. However one wants to dig for other meanings to words they are free to do, however, there are no Bible versions to include the NABRE that takes “until” or “till” out of the text. I will note there is a lengthy footnote for this verse as well in the NABRE.
Am I saying that Mary was not a perpetual virgin? No, I am not. All I am saying is the texts never state so, nor do they suggest it or hint at it. In fact the impression is the opposite.
I don’t find anything persuasive about that line of reasoning.
It seems that the NABRE no longer uses “full of grace” but this:
Luke 1:
28And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”(NABRE)
However, being fair, the DRA does have “full of grace” but then again that is the only Bible version in English that does. The New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE) has “favored one” as well.
The Latin, as you probably know, can go either way “grace” or “favored.”
However, the same “grace” as seen in Ephesians 2:8 is a different form of “grace” chosen by the DRA and which every other English Bible (to include the NRSVCE and NABRE) use “favored one.”
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.