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.”
You’re not getting off so easy!
You claim Paul included traditions, but you won’t share them with me. I can only speculate this is either immensely selfish, or cold, or perhaps you have no earthly idea what traditions Paul meant. Which is it NKP??
If you do not know, admit it humbly. If you do, share it so we may accept them.
Which is it?? Where’s the beef??!
It appears you have absolutely no idea what Paul meant - as does no one else. If no one knows what his traditions were, one shouldn’t pretend it is meaningful to Christians today.
You claimed it. Prove it. If you are unwilling to share your proof for the edification of all, please share why you won’t bless others.
What is your evidence for your claim?
“I stand up for and profess the One, True, Church, and that Church is the Catholic Church. Deal with it. It’s fact.”
Well great, you’ve posted another assertion with no proof. An assertion without proof is a slogan.
If you want to be taken seriously, show us your proof that the roman church is “the one true church”. Or continue to shout slogans for your own comfort...
Where’s the beef???!
On FR your are at least advised to give the page link when posting taking something from that page. Meanwhile, you have just confirmed you want to be one of those careless posters who uncritically parrot RC polemics. And which often are in error on Luther. Which further lessens your credibility
And for the record, I have seen that list of quotes you site and the same argument. Cardinal Bellarmine was Jesuit
Bellarmine was simply one who listed eight earlier authors who added "sola," and was not invoked as one who supported Luther.
As for historical support, Manning had the solution to the problem of ancient evidence that conflicted with Rome:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. ...
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. The Church is always primitive and always modern at one and the same time; and alone can expound its own mind, as an individual can declare his own thoughts... — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, pp. 227,28
The Patristic Tradition supports his claim. Tradition, which means literally to hand over what was received, is expressed throughout the Patristic Literature. Rather than cite all it, I am sure you can go to this website which is a Reformed Protestant site [although the moderators there do a good job allowing discussion in their forums, I don’t post there, but have read the posts] and it uses the translations by the Reformed Patristic Scholar P. Schaff.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
Among the Fathers citing Tradition, in line with what St. Paul said He handed on what he received e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:23-30]. He also states Traditions that were delivered in 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thes 2:15; 2 Thes 3:6;
would be St. Ireneaus in Against Heresies [Boook 1, Chapter 10]; [Book 2, Chapter 9]; [Book 3, Chapters 3 & 4] [Book 4, Chapter 33]
St. Basil the Great [Letter 125]; [On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 27]
St. John Chrysostem [Homlies on Second Thessalonians]
St. Jerome [Dialogue with the Luciferians, Chapter 8]
St. Augustine [Against Julian, Book 2, Chapter 10], [Letter 54]
Eusebius of Caesara [Church History, Book 3, Chapter 6 on St. Ignatius putting down the Traditon of the Apostles in his Letters].
My little comment, here but if you read this, one it states that St. Ignatius wanted to write down the oral tradition of the Apostles, which he got from Polycarp, who was a pupil of the Apostle John. So His Letters [written around 107AD can be among the earliest written forms of the Tradition of the Apostles that was received by the Catholic Church]
Eusebius of Casara [Church History, Book 6, Chapter 14 on St. Clement and the Tradition of how the Gospels were written and by whom, etc]
Origen [On First Principles, Book 1, Preface 2]
Those, in my opinion, would be a good start with respect to the notion of Sacred Tradition and how the Church received it.
The moderators appreciate a url or link to check for copyright restrictions.
I am glad Polycarp used the portion of To it that he did than the part where fish guts are burned to ward off demons.
40 is 40 :21 is 21
40 does not explain 21. They are separate.
I do like the horse and cart analogy
Please show me the scriptural evidence where the Lord’s Supper is reserved for priests to celebrate. Another inference based on centuries of tradition.
Perhaps a slight misinterpretation. The passage about parts of the body being parts despite what they may think/decide, does not appear to have the purpose of saying that the parts are "interdependent" so much as it is to affirm that once saved in Christ, we are part of His Church from the common thread of the Holy Spirit/Jesus/God the Father being manifested in us compared to those who are not saved.
It is a stretch to say it lays the groundwork to make intercession by other flawed mortals a requirement for salvation.
If that was the polemic behind the "we gave you the Bible" assertion then there would be no contention, except as to their claim.
Tradition is interesting, but is not authoritative.
Tradition isn’t verifiable as being directly from the apostles.
A certain poster on this thread has been asked repeatedly to delineate the traditions Paul referenced in the passage you quoted - and which he clIms are EQUAL to Scripture.
Either he is selfishly guarding them, or is ignorant of the official list, or such a list does not exist. In fact, it is the latter. There is no list. We simply do not know if those traditions were incorporated into Scripture, or if God deemed them NOT part of authoritative Scripture.
No where does Scripture say any tradition is equal to His revelation. And traditions can be wrong.
Tradition supports his claim about tradition. I see... Pfftft
“...not salvific merits...
That is the crux of the matter. Christ IS the unblemished acceptable sacrifice.
It is what we DO with the information that matters next.
“... The works we do as Christians are not salvific.
That is the set up. Catholics DO NOT EVER THINK the works they do are salvific.
NOT EVER. It is His Grace.
We cannot take our works that our blemished. That is the thing that went wrong!!!! We were told that is what Catholics think - that OUR WORKS take the place of HIS.
Catholics do not think this.
The issue is that the verses prior and after do not cause that verse to not say what it says.
Thus we agree on the horse and cart analogy. As I said before to another poster Evangelicals are accused of saying “no works at all period.” I have to remind some we are not antinomians.
When one puts on Christ, there is a LOT of work to do. As He said the harvest is plentiful the workers few. This also...If we love Him we will do what He says. I fully understand when we confess with our mouth Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, the “Lord” portion needs to be understood we are subject to Him and we take all commands from Him.
I can see your point that the context being two different gospel accounts may dilute the point. Meaning Jesus was communicating more than the John reference. I may have gone expository on you without making it clear that I did so. The will of the Father for us to believe He sent His Son and believe in Him is a constant and consistent theme in John’s gospel.
Many thanks for seeing the context.
The Will of the Father - And the natures of our Lord:
Who with thy only begotten Son art One Lord not in the unity of a single person, but in the trinity of a single nature
“I have to remind some we are not antinomians.”
No, but every Christian is necronomian according to Scripture.
If you desire to discuss the Trinity then come on over to the “damnable heresy thread.”
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.