"We don't believe that anymore"

Just wondering how many of you all out there have ever been in a discussion or had a question answered by a priest, Bishop, Deacon, or DRE with the response, “That is no longer Catholic belief or doctrine” or “The Catholic Church no longer believes that” or “The Catholic Church no longer teaches that since Vatican II”…This is just a puzzling answer to me, because when I converted, I was taught in RCIA that Catholic Dogma/Doctrine never change…how is it that the Church can teach something for over 1000 years…but then all of a sudden not teach it…refute it…or down right refuse that they ever taught it…I am not citing any specific examples…but I just thought this was literally an impossibility…For instance, how could the Catholic Church support something on January 9, 2007…but then turn around on January 10, 2007 and say that teaching is not true…that doctrine is not true…“we no longer believe that”

That sounds very odd to me, too. I don’t think it’s ever actually happened, anyway.

Disciplines can change - they change all the time, but these are not “beliefs;” they’re just ways of doing things. But I suppose someone could misspeak and say that “our belief in Friday penance has changed,” or something like that, even though Friday penance is a discipline; not a belief.

Well, I teach CCD during the week at the local parish because my parish is 45 minutes away, so I only go down there about two or three times a week. The parish around here is pretty liberal.

I use the Baltimore Catechism to teach the kids, I am just waiting for them to find out. I assume they will say something like this.

LOL…tell me about it…I was having a discussion about the Baltimore Catechism with a DRE at one of the parishes around there and he proceeded to try and rip me a new one…he was going on about how it doesn’t reflect Catholic teaching anymore…how it is out of date, etc…It was truly sad.

I don’t know - I have the St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism #3 in my reference library and the only things “out of date” in it are that it’s missing the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary (no surprise there) and the disciplines around fasting and abstinence have changed. So far, I haven’t encountered even one doctrinal difference between it and the 1992 Catechism.

[/quote]

[right]JMJ + OBT[/right]

That’s happened to me many, many, many, many, many times in my short 30 years. I’ve heard such statements from numerous laity, clergy and religious.

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

hello my friend…you may have misunderstood the meaning of this post…it is not to say that the Catholic Church has actually changed any of its teachings or doctrine…because Doctrine can never change…the purpose was to point out how so many people in positions of authority and those who are charged with teaching the Catholic faith simply decide to discard certain teachings or dismiss them in the wake of Vatican II like they are no longer valid or applicable…when asked about it, they just simply say, “the Church doesn’t teach that anymore after VII”…they are able to get away with it, because most of the people they are talking to, doesn’t know their faith to begin with. Doctrinally, the current Catechism and the Baltimore Catechism are exactly the same…however, the way the information is presented is different…I personally prefer the question/answer format of the Baltimore Catechism and find it very useful in teaching the Catholic faith to others…it is funny though…there are scores of people who will bash the BC and tell you it is out of date and no longer compatible with Church teachings.

The Baltimore Catecisim is still good. What has changed is not what the church has always taught, but what some pious well meaning little nun taught because she thought that was what the Church taught. Could have been well meaning parents and other folk. as well. Yeah, some disciplinary things we thought came from the Apostles took on the shades of doctrinal truth as well. Yes there are folks who should know better who scoff at the actual truth.

Sorry, my statement was very unclear. I meant that Doctrine hasn’t changed.

I have run across a few priests (thankfully not very many) who think that the Church’s doctrine has gone the way of the dodo bird, though - I think it’s unfortunate, because they are missing out on many of the beauties of the faith that they profess to hold.

Yes, I know - I was intending to agree with you.

Doctrinally, the current Catechism and the Baltimore Catechism are exactly the same…however, the way the information is presented is different…I personally prefer the question/answer format of the Baltimore Catechism and find it very useful in teaching the Catholic faith to others…it is funny though…there are scores of people who will bash the BC and tell you it is out of date and no longer compatible with Church teachings.

I am really enjoying the Compendium of the Catechism, which combines the best features of both. I’m betting that you would also enjoy it very much, too! :thumbsup:

I have no idea what the Baltimore Catechism is. Can someone enlighten me?

I, too, have experienced the words of the title of this thread many, many times. The most notable time being when a new bishop gave a series of talks at my first parish. Very frustrating. And, of course, in discussing it with fellow parishioners, it’s natural for me to look like I’m off my rocker to think that a bishop either misspoke or missunderstands the teaching!

I do see a silver lining, though. The more that priests/bishops differ from each other in what they say, the more people will realize that our shepherds, chosen though they are, are still fallible beings. This just might spur people to investigate and learn the truth about authority and infallibility, making them more knowledgable Catholics. Of course, they may also throw their hands up and say, “There’s no way to know what’s true!” But I’m a cock-eyed optimist and believe that the Holy Spirit will lead us through the former process.

Actually, I think some of what Traditional Catholics struggle with was caused by priests and nuns of yesteryear who were not trying to push a new agenda, but who misguidedly presented slightly limited interpretations of dogma as the official interpretation. More than once I’ve heard, “Don’t tell me the Church never taught that. When I was a kid, Sister said…” But back then, there was little difference in these interpretations. Now that there are big differences, it may be a positive wake-up call for the faithful.

[right]JMJ + OBT[/right]

The following article in the Wikipedia will tell you what it is:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Catechism

And you can read it for yourself by visiting the following webpages (links taken from the Wikipedia article):

Baltimore Catechism No. 1: An abridged edition for younger students.
Baltimore Catechism No. 2: The main edition.
Baltimore Catechism No. 3: An expanded edition for older students.
Baltimore Catechism No. 4: An annotated edition for teachers.

I hope that helps. :smiley:

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

I hear it all the time.

When I started going back to Mass a few years ago my mother was confused and told me that Vatican II said we dont have to go every Sunday anymore.

My religion teacher claims that Vatican II taught against the existance of purgatory and that the existance of hell is a grey issue.

Sonny, I sure as heck hope that the DRE was not one at the parish due north of you!

For most of us who were kids in the 50s and early 60s, we learned our faith via the Baltimore Catechism. It was black and white: Who is God? God is the supreme being who made all things.

At 55, the bedrock of my faith is the Baltimore Catechism. Credo. I believe. And I am glad to see that some of the youngsters on these forums are being homeschooled and taught the Baltimore Catechism.

Thanks. So it is basically the Catechism of the Catholic Church in a different format? And the Vatican OK’ed it for use over here? It sounds like maybe it is put together in a way to make eduction easier?

It was in use during the 1950s and 1960s. The disciplines outlined in it are from that time. Apart from that, it’s certainly very useful today - and even if you followed the disciplines as outlined in there, you wouldn’t contradict any disciplinary teaching of today, as long as you realized that other people aren’t bound to that; they are only bound to today’s disciplines.

[right]JMJ + OBT[/right]

Well, sort of. The CCC was published in the last decade of the 20th Century, whereas the first editions of the Baltimore Catechism were published at the end of the 19th Century. But, yes, they do contain the same teachings even though there were published almost 100 years apart, albeit the “styles” of the two catechisms are quite different. Also, the CCC is an official document of the universal Church and was approved and published by decree of Pope John Paul II. The Baltimore Catechism is less universal in that it was “produced” and approved by a conference of Catholic bishops in the USA, and as far as I know it never achieved wide readership or popularity among non-American Catholics.

And the Vatican OK’ed it for use over here? It sounds like maybe it is put together in a way to make eduction easier?

Sure, it at least enjoyed implicit approval by the Vatican (I’m not sure about official approval) in that it was created and published on the orders of a local council of bishops whose “big” decisions were almost certainly reviewed by the Holy See. And yes, the idea was to make Catholic religious education in the USA easier and more uniform.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

Ok. I think that makes sense. I have only known about the CCC itself for about a year, maybe even less. I am trying to learn everything I didn’t.

I will check that out…thanks buddy :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.