Cafeterianism

[pearl]

If recruitment is the paramount concern for a religion, the idea of belonging to an elite group favored by God makes a strong appeal to the arrogant side of human nature. I've read Catholics claiming that Vatican Two, which rendered them less elite, was responsible for their dwindling numbers.

As far as the Church in America is concerned, Catholics were considered inferior and hated by Protestants who claimed the United States to be a Protestant country, Catholics were no more than foreigners who could never be Americanized. Much of what you refer to as elite was in self defense.
Yes Vat II caused a schism. I think we would witness the same if the Church ordained women.

 

[joe1776]

As far as the Church in America is concerned, Catholics were considered inferior and hated by Protestants who claimed the United States to be a Protestant country, Catholics were no more than foreigners who could never be Americanized. Much of what you refer to as elite was in self defense.
Yes Vat II caused a schism. I think we would witness the same if the Church ordained women.

I doubt that the prejudice I encountered from Protestants was just an American problem. The Catholic Church worldwide considered itself The One True Church and the only path to salvation. That's an elitist position that some Protestant faiths also embraced. I think the JWs claim it.

The military calls it esprit de corps. Young men want to join the U.S. Marines to feel part of the elite fighting unit. In recruiting, it's an appeal to the arrogant side of human nature.

I think Vatican Two was a tradeoff for the Church. It gave up its appeal to the arrogant side of its faithful to join the rest of humanity in its drive for global harmony. I think Vat II was a moral upgrade for the Church which will never admit that it needed a moral upgrade.

 

[metis]

The Catholic Church worldwide considered itself The One True Church and the only path to salvation.

Many states here have laws against prostitution but rarely ever prosecute such cases. I draw this as a parallel with the Catholic Church today as the old teaching on this, while technically valid, isn't even paid lip-service anymore amongst the clergy, including the Pope. He even recently said that he think that atheists might be "saved", plus he doesn't criticize nor condemn those in other faiths.

I think Vat II was a moral upgrade for the Church which will never admit that it needed a moral upgrade.

No, it was admitted when Pope John XXIII said that the Church needed to "open the windows" of the Church. IOW, the Church had been too much for too long just into itself.

 

[joe1776]

Many states here have laws against prostitution but rarely ever prosecute such cases. I draw this as a parallel with the Catholic Church today as the old teaching on this, while technically valid, isn't even paid lip-service anymore amongst the clergy, including the Pope. He even recently said that he think that atheists might be "saved", plus he doesn't criticize nor condemn those in other faiths.

Please clarify your reasoning. In an earlier post you denied that the Church ever taught that it was the only path to salvation. You wrote: "Then (sic) rather unfortunate reality is that the Church actually didn't teach that as such but that some rather overzealous clergy taught it anyway." Now, you seem to be saying that it's still the Church's position but it's being ignored the way some states ignore prostitution..

No, it was admitted when Pope John XXIII said that the Church needed to "open the windows" of the Church. IOW, the Church had been too much for too long just into itself.

There were liberals like John XXIII in the Church for centuries but it wasn't until Vatican Two that they gained control. I quoted Pope Pius XII, who reigned for 19 years just prior to Vatican II. I suggest you compare his comment on the Church and salvation (I quoted it earlier in Post 60) to those of any of his successors.

 

[pearl]

The Catholic Church worldwide considered itself The One True Church

For 1600 years it was.

I doubt that the prejudice I encountered from Protestants was just an American problem.

When America Hated Catholics

 

[joe1776]

For 1600 years it was.

If one believes as a Christian, that's true.

When America Hated Catholics

That title is misleading. The article is about the era of WASP prejudice against immigrants.of all flavors. Irish Protestants were' not accepted anymore than Irish Catholics.

 

[pearl]

There were liberals like John XXIII in the Church for centuries but it wasn't until Vatican Two that they gained control. I quoted Pope Pius XII, who reigned for 19 years just prior to Vatican II. I suggest you compare his comment on the Church and salvation (I quoted it earlier) to those of any of his successors.

You misunderstand Vat II. It was not a dogmatic Council, no change of dogma, it was a pastoral Council. As for Pius XII he initiated many of the liturgical changes. with his
"divino affante spiritu" he opened Catholic scholarship to the use of historical critical biblical methods in interpreting Scripture.

 

[pearl]

That title is misleading. The article is about the era of WASP prejudice against immigrants.of all flavors. Irish Protestants were' not accepted anymore than Irish Catholics.

The KKK is not made up of Catholics or Jews.

If one believes as a Christian, that's true.

So the history of the Reformation is wrong?

 

[Vouthon]

I quoted Pope Pius XII, who reigned for 19 years just prior to Vatican II. I suggest you compare his comment on the Church and salvation (I quoted it earlier in Post 60) to those of any of his successors.

What, this one? Looking at the letter from the Holy Office (here), the introductory letter from Archbishop Cushing clearly states, "The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision".

Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston (Directly approved by Pope Pius XII, August 8, 1949): Canon Law Digest, Vol III, 1953, pg 525, Canon 1324 (Dangers to the Faith) (Excerpts):

"In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807). The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.


Pope Pius XII (Oct. 29, 1951): Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives:

"the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism..."

​

An act of love, he said, is sufficient to obtain the salvific grace necessary for heaven - even if a person isn't a member of the church through baptism, as in the case of Jews, Buddhists, atheists and so on.

 

[joe1776]

The KKK is not made up of Catholics or Jews.

Please clarify: Is your point that since the KKK are American Protestants, that this somehow supports your point that the anti-Catholic prejudice was solely an American phenomenon? Bear in mind that the KKK lynchings were of black Protestants.

So the history of the Reformation is wrong?

No, I agreed with you because the word "church" which implies 'Christian' was in play. I doubt that Muslims and Jews, for example, would have agreed that the Church was the one true religion.

 

[joe1776]

You misunderstand Vat II. It was not a dogmatic Council, no change of dogma, it was a pastoral Council. As for Pius XII he initiated many of the liturgical changes. with his "divino affante spiritu" he opened Catholic scholarship to the use of historical critical biblical methods in interpreting Scripture.

No change of dogma? Have you changed your mind so quickly?

In Post 73, you reported that "When the implementation of Vat II began to trickle to the parish level many complained of becoming Protestants." And in Post 81, you wrote that "Yes Vat II caused a schism. I think we would witness the same if the Church ordained women."

My recall of the aftermath of Vatican Two agrees with that of Thomas Ryan, director of the Loyola Institute for Ministry: "This shift included the Catholic Church’s attitude toward other religions. Before Vatican II, Catholics weren’t supposed to visit other denominations’ houses of worship. Catholics looked down on other religions and thought of them as condemned to hell."

 

[metis]

Please clarify your reasoning. In an earlier post you denied that the Church ever taught that it was the only path to salvation. You wrote: "Then (sic) rather unfortunate reality is that the Church actually didn't teach that as such but that some rather overzealous clergy taught it anyway." Now, you seem to be saying that it's still the Church's position but it's being ignored the way some states ignore prostitution..

According to the Catechism, only if one is significantly exposed and explained why the Catholic Church is the "true Church" is one in jeopardy of not being able to be "saved". For those who are not thus informed, including members in other religions, there is no such condemnation on that basis.

But even that has evolved over time whereas the Church now has much more taken a non-judgmental stance, and we have seen ample evidence of that with the more recent popes.

There were liberals like John XXIII in the Church for centuries but it wasn't until Vatican Two that they gained control. I quoted Pope Pius XII, who reigned for 19 years just prior to Vatican II. I suggest you compare his comment on the Church and salvation (I quoted it earlier in Post 60) to those of any of his successors.

I would never have converted to Catholicism prior to Vatican II for that reason alone.

 

[joe1776]

An act of love, he said, is sufficient to obtain the salvific grace necessary for heaven - even if a person isn't a member of the church through baptism, as in the case of Jews, Buddhists, atheists and so on.

You have added your own personal, very broad, interpretation of what was meant to be a list of rare exceptions. Reaching back many years to my early training, I recall that primitive people who had never been reached by a Catholic missionary were not condemned to Hell probably because they were "involved in invincible ignorance" as your quote put it. But Jews, Buddhists and atheists? No way in Hell -- not before Vatican Two.

 

[pearl]

Post 73, you reported that "When the implementation of Vat II began to trickle to the parish level many complained of becoming Protestants." And in Post 81, you wrote that "Yes Vat II caused a schism. I think we would witness the same if the Church ordained women."

The schism following Vat II had nothing to do with dogma. It was a protest against the liturgical renewal. And yes, another mass protest by conservatives/ traditionalists would follow the ordination of women.

My recall of the aftermath of Vatican Two agrees with that of Thomas Ryan, director of the Loyola Institute for Ministry: "This shift included the Catholic Church’s attitude toward other religions. Before Vatican II, Catholics weren’t supposed to visit other denominations’ houses of worship. Catholics looked down on other religions and thought of them as condemned to hell."

Attitude is not dogma. tradition is not dogma.

 

[Vouthon]

You have added your own personal, very broad, interpretation of what was meant to be a list of rare exceptions. Reaching back many years to my early training, I recall that primitive people who had never been reached by a Catholic missionary were not condemned to Hell probably because they were "involved in invincible ignorance" as your quote put it. But Jews, Buddhists and atheists? No way in Hell.

Rare exceptions?

Pope Pius IX set no limit to it:

POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quadam, 1854:

174. “Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2), shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”​

In his refutation of Jansenism in 1690, Pope Alexander VIII had already recognised that it covered, "Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort" in terms of grace. That hardly looks like a negligible number to me - I mean, can you get any vaguer than 'other people of the sort'?

And this was the common understanding of the era before Vatican II, as evidenced by the old Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912 (which had a nihil obstat and imprimatur):


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Religious Toleration

But does the proposition that outside the Church there is no salvation involve the doctrine so often attributed to Catholicism, that the Catholic Church, in virtue of this principle, "condemns and must condemn all non-Catholics"? This is by no means the case. The foolish and unchristian maxim that those who are outside the Church must for that very reason be eternally lost is no legitimate conclusion from Catholic dogma...

The gentle breathing of grace is not confined within the walls of the Catholic Church, but reaches the hearts of many who stand afar, working in them the marvel of justification and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of numberless men who either, like upright Jews and pagans, do not know the true Church, or, like so many Protestants educated in gross prejudice, cannot appreciate her true nature. To all such, the Church does not close the gate of Heaven...

APA citation. Pohle, J. (1912). Religious Toleration. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.​

How else can you interpret the above? 'Numberless men'.

As the radio-reply priests I quoted earlier from 1942 explained, it was generally thought that a person dying without serious violations of conscience who sincerely believed his own belief system to be the absolute truth (i.e. "provided he sincerely believed Judaism to be still the true religion, and died truly repentant of all serious violations of conscience during life"), was sufficient. I would hasten to guess that many people fall into that category. Who insincerely believes in their own belief system?

 

[joe1776]

According to the Catechism, only if one is significantly exposed and explained why the Catholic Church is the "true Church" is one in jeopardy of not being able to be "saved". For those who are not thus informed, including members in other religions, there is no such condemnation on that basis.

So, what Church doctrine are you saying is being ignored the way that some states ignore the enforcement of prostitution? The one you described doesn't sound like it needs to be ignored.

 

[joe1776]

Attitude is not dogma. tradition is not dogma.

You're playing with words. It was a shift in the teaching of the Church which brought about the change of attitude toward other religions.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Would one worship at a cafeteria?

Services have been held in pubs so why not?
We have a cafe in our church every Thursday afternoon, I have just come back from a coffee with friends there. There is a play group for toddlers and parents there every Thursday morning. with usually about 50 to 60 children plus parents.
Churches are places for communities these days.

 

[joe1776]

Rare exceptions?

Pope Pius IX set no limit to it:

POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quadam, 1854:

174. “Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2), shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”​

In his refutation of Jansenism in 1690, Pope Alexander VIII had already recognised that it covered, "Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort" in terms of grace. That hardly looks like a negligible number to me - I mean, can you get any vaguer than 'other people of the sort'?

And this was the common understanding of the era before Vatican II, as evidenced by the old Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912 (which had a nihil obstat and imprimatur):


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Religious Toleration

But does the proposition that outside the Church there is no salvation involve the doctrine so often attributed to Catholicism, that the Catholic Church, in virtue of this principle, "condemns and must condemn all non-Catholics"? This is by no means the case. The foolish and unchristian maxim that those who are outside the Church must for that very reason be eternally lost is no legitimate conclusion from Catholic dogma...

The gentle breathing of grace is not confined within the walls of the Catholic Church, but reaches the hearts of many who stand afar, working in them the marvel of justification and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of numberless men who either, like upright Jews and pagans, do not know the true Church, or, like so many Protestants educated in gross prejudice, cannot appreciate her true nature. To all such, the Church does not close the gate of Heaven...

APA citation. Pohle, J. (1912). Religious Toleration. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.​

How else can you interpret the above? 'Numberless men'.

As the radio-reply priests I quoted earlier from 1942 explained, it was generally thought that a person dying without serious violations of conscience who sincerely believed his own belief system to be the absolute truth (i.e. "provided he sincerely believed Judaism to be still the true religion, and died truly repentant of all serious violations of conscience during life"), was sufficient. I would hasten to guess that many people fall into that category. Who insincerely believes in their own belief system?

You are repeating your cherry-picked evidence. So, please accept this as my official repetition of my cherry-picked evidence. See my Post # 60.

Seriously, I have no doubt that you can find quotes from liberal sources over the centuries to support your position just as I can find conservative quotes to support mine. The question is: Was the Church controlled by the liberals or conservatives prior to Vatican Two? I don't have a shred of doubt about the answer; The conservatives ruled until I was about 30 years old and Vatican Two happened. But, I'm convinced that I'm incapable of proving that to your satisfaction.

 

[Vouthon]

You are repeating your cherry-picked evidence. So, please accept this as my official repetition of my cherry-picked evidence. See my Post # 60.

Because it's still applicable and you still won't address it.

But, I'll be happy to give you different evidence later as well (I'll need to get mt research notes out).

I actually did address some of your quotations and contextualize their meaning. I'm going to deal with more as well asap.

Seriously, I have no doubt that you can find quotes from liberal sources over the centuries to support your position just as I can find conservative quotes to support mine. The question is: Was the Church controlled by the liberals or conservatives prior to Vatican Two? I don't have a shred of doubt about the answer; The conservative ruled until I was about 30 years old and Vatican Two happened. But, I'm convinced that I'm incapable of proving that to you.

The church didn't work that way pre-Vatican II.

Nothing could be published with a nihil obstat or imprimatur unless it accorded with the doctrinal stance of the church.

You know this.