Question about Catholic guilt? :)

[LG Gone Wild]

SSPX Catholics are not in full communion with the Church so I have no idea why their opinion of the rest of us would hold much weight. ;)

 

My parish does offer a Latin Mass every Sunday at noon, I've not yet gone. We have 7 Sunday Masses offered (two are Sat. night anticipated Mass times) and there is something for everyone. If you like quick and no music, 7:30 a.m. is your time, if you like traditional, aim for 9:00 or 10:30, TLM is noon and the guitar Mass is at 5:00. :tongue_smilie: Saturday night also offers a more contemporary Mass and one in Spanish. You'll see everything from jeans and Crocs to full length chapel veil wearing women in my parish. That's about as good as it gets, IMO!

 

I am not concerned about SSPX Catholics. Vatican II is what the Church is in my lifetime. I can't go back in time and join the Church of 50 years ago.

 

If I didn't have such rowdy children, I might go to a Latin Mass in a neighboring parish to see what the big deal is. :tongue_smilie:

[Murphy101]

I am not concerned about SSPX Catholics. Vatican II is what the Church is in my lifetime. I can't go back in time and join the Church of 50 years ago.

 

If I didn't have such rowdy children, I might go to a Latin Mass in a neighboring parish to see what the big deal is. :tongue_smilie:

 

Don't confuse Latin mass with SSPX.

 

Yes, they want a Latin mass and that is the crux of their issue, but it is more than that. Latin mass is available in many parishes without attending a SSPX mass. It isn't as often as any SSPX member thinks it should be, but one could say the same of Spanish masses or whatever.

[LG Gone Wild]

Don't confuse Latin mass with SSPX.

 

Yes, they want a Latin mass and that is the crux of their issue, but it is more than that. Latin mass is available in many parishes without attending a SSPX mass. It isn't as often as any SSPX member thinks it should be, but one could say the same of Spanish masses or whatever.

 

 

I am not (I don't think). :)

[HeidiKC]

I'm Catholic, and I'm not a big fan of the term "Catholic guilt". I think there have been a lot of great and interesting responses here. Just wanted to mention a few things. I think of this as sort of an old-fashioned idea, or something from a previous generation. Catholic churches and schools today don't focus on guilt like it seems they must have done 50+ years ago. The image someone posted of the two little boys seems like a perfect example!

 

Also, I think lots of non-Catholics might have outdated ideas on what Catholics practice or believe today. Totally understandable, since their ideas probably often come from movies, ex-Catholics that grew up pre-Vatican II, or from phrases such as "Catholic guilt". At my son's Catholic school, there are only about 2 nuns out of at least 24 teachers. And they aren't even all Catholic! As far as I know, they have never learned anything about feeling guilty, or really even much about sin! (Not sure if that last part is good or bad!). The message is more about loving God and loving others, and helping those in need.

[BBG580]

My grandmother's two sisters are nuns. My grandmother (in her late 80s) no longer drives and doesn't always have transportation. She often watches mass on TV. Her sisters told her that doesn't count, it's not the same. :blink:

 

Your grandmother is not obligated to attend Mass if she legitimately cannot get there. In fact, there are laity groups of Eucharistic Ministers who will travel to the homes of those who cannot attend Mass to take them communion.

 

No, watching Mass on TV isn't the same as going but it can still be a wonderful thing for those who cannot attend. :)

[ElizaG]

Catholic churches and schools today don't focus on guilt like it seems they must have done 50+ years ago. The image someone posted of the two little boys seems like a perfect example! (...)

 

At my son's Catholic school, there are only about 2 nuns out of at least 24 teachers. And they aren't even all Catholic! As far as I know, they have never learned anything about feeling guilty, or really even much about sin! (Not sure if that last part is good or bad!).

It looks like your son is in first grade. They'll probably learn more about sin when he's preparing for his First Confession (which happens before First Communion, often in 2nd grade). If not, there would be rather a gaping hole in the curriculum.

 

"Bless me Father, for I have... um... hey, why am I in here anyway?" :001_huh: :D

 

BTW, I just checked, and the book that contains the image of the two little boys is used by Kolbe, Catholic Heritage Curricula, and Mother of Divine Grace, as well as Seton. I'm pretty sure those are the four most popular Catholic homeschool programs, at least in my area. They all make use of other books as well, but the 1963 St. Joseph First Communion Catechism evidently isn't considered to be dangerous when used as directed. (No actual small boys were harmed in the production, either. ;) )

[8circles]

On the few occasions when I still attended Mass, I said the Creed, but left out the words "the holy Catholic church," and didn't receive communion.

 

I've been thinking about this for a few days... why? I don't know. But I thought I may as well ask since I can't stop thinking about it.

 

Which creed do you say that has "Catholic" with a capitol "C"?

[lamamaloca]

BTW, I just checked, and the book that contains the image of the two little boys is used by Kolbe, Catholic Heritage Curricula, and Mother of Divine Grace, as well as Seton. I'm pretty sure those are the four most popular Catholic homeschool programs, at least in my area. They all make use of other books as well, but the 1963 St. Joseph First Communion Catechism evidently isn't considered to be dangerous when used as directed. (No actual small boys were harmed in the production, either. ;) )

 

I know it is used by many such programs, but that doesn't mean it isn't problematic. I know many mothers using those programs, besides myself, who won't use this text or the Baltimore Catechism because of problematic passages, and who alter the lesson plans to avoid them. There were problems with older catechesis, even if they aren't the same as some of the problems with more recent catechesis.

[Murphy101]

I know it is used by many such programs, but that doesn't mean it isn't problematic. I know many mothers using those programs, besides myself, who won't use this text or the Baltimore Catechism because of problematic passages, and who alter the lesson plans to avoid them. There were problems with older catechesis, even if they aren't the same as some of the problems with more recent catechesis.

 

Hmm.

 

So far, the RCC doesn't agree with you. It has not been said by the Church there is or was a problem with the Baltimore catechism. Been LOTS of problems with teachers thinking they know better and don't need it or not teaching it properly. But no condemnation about the actual catechism itself.

 

Faith and Life or Image of God are quality alternatives, though they simply present the same info as the Baltimore cat in a different format.

 

I haven't found any others that I think are worth the paper they are printed on. The others are often so watered down they are hardly recognizable as Catholic. IMO. Obviously.:)

[Catwoman]

Latin mass is available in many parishes without attending a SSPX mass. It isn't as often as any SSPX member thinks it should be, but one could say the same of Spanish masses or whatever.

 

The mass was in Latin when I was a kid, and I thought it was so cool. It made going to mass somehow "extra-special" or something. It's hard to explain.

 

Once it was in English, it seemed more ordinary and not as poetic and "holy."

 

And I know that was an incredibly stupid explanation. I know what I mean, but I don't know how to phrase it. (Nothing new there...:glare:)

 

Cat

[LG Gone Wild]

The mass was in Latin when I was a kid, and I thought it was so cool. It made going to mass somehow "extra-special" or something. It's hard to explain.

 

Once it was in English, it seemed more ordinary and not as poetic and "holy."

 

And I know that was an incredibly stupid explanation. I know what I mean, but I don't know how to phrase it. (Nothing new there...:glare:)

 

Cat

 

I get what you mean. :001_smile: I think Latin Mass would be very special and cool.

[Crimson Wife]

The mass was in Latin when I was a kid, and I thought it was so cool. It made going to mass somehow "extra-special" or something. It's hard to explain.

 

Once it was in English, it seemed more ordinary and not as poetic and "holy."

 

And I know that was an incredibly stupid explanation. I know what I mean, but I don't know how to phrase it. (Nothing new there...:glare:)

 

Cat

 

FWIW, I don't think that one's preference for Mass in Latin vs. the vernacular should be used as a "litmus test" for devout Catholicism. I've tried to do the Tridentine Mass thing and it's just not for me. Now the Gregorian chant "high" Mass *IS* an amazing spiritual experience but that would require a nearly 5 hour time block each Sunday between the length of the commute and the Mass itself.

[lamamaloca]

Faith and Life or Image of God are quality alternatives, though they simply present the same info as the Baltimore cat in a different format.

 

No they don't, they present Catholic doctrine in conformity with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The BC hasn't been condemned, but it also isn't approved for catechesis by Church authorities. The BC isn't on the US Bishops' approved list of books for use in catechesis, because it doesn't incorporate the teachings of Vatican II or the CCC. And its imprimateur didn't guarantee that it was perfect, any more than it guarantees that ANY text is perfect.

[Crimson Wife]

No they don't, they present Catholic doctrine in conformity with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The BC hasn't been condemned, but it also isn't approved for catechesis by Church authorities. The BC isn't on the US Bishops' approved list of books for use in catechesis, because it doesn't incorporate the teachings of Vatican II or the CCC. And its imprimateur didn't guarantee that it was perfect, any more than it guarantees that ANY text is perfect.

 

We use Faith & Life and the New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism and I haven't noticed any differences in doctrine between the two.

 

What in the CCC contradicts the BC?

[Parrothead]

J.

 

What do you think was incorrect about what Martha said? :confused: It seems to me that her words did reflect Church teaching on the subject.

The way I read it was she said that one can commit mortal sin then simply go to confession and be absolved.

 

While standing at the checkout line, Sally said, "I'm just going to go ahead and put this candy bar in my purse. I'll go to confession Saturday to confess stealing it and everything will be okay."

 

That is compounding sin with more sin, and definitely not a church teaching.

 

No they don't, they present Catholic doctrine in conformity with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The BC hasn't been condemned, but it also isn't approved for catechesis by Church authorities. The BC isn't on the US Bishops' approved list of books for use in catechesis, because it doesn't incorporate the teachings of Vatican II or the CCC. And its imprimateur didn't guarantee that it was perfect, any more than it guarantees that ANY text is perfect.

:iagree: I think what we are getting into here is more of a debate on which is the best Catholic way - prior to Vat II or after Vat II.

 

A lot has happened in the Chruch since the year the Baltimore Catechism was published in 1891.

 

And I'll challenge anyone who thinks RE teachers are doing a crappy job, to go volunteer at your local parish to teach RE to disrespectful children who would rather be any where else on Sunday mornings. These are the same kids who know that after first communion they won't be required by their parents to go back to RE classes until Confirmation time. That is if their diocese doesn't follow the Restored Order and confirm them prior to FHC.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Parrothead

[lamamaloca]

We use Faith & Life and the New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism and I haven't noticed any differences in doctrine between the two.

 

What in the CCC contradicts the BC?

 

The issue isn't so much contradiction so much as presentation and omission. It doesn't incorporate the Vat II teachings on Protestants as "separated brethren," which was truly a sea change in Catholic thought. It doesn't incorporate any of the development that occurred with Vat II, which was quite a bit, although most changes were in emphases. It recommends some practices I find theologically problematic, such as recommending that if children have no serious sin to confess, they confess some previous sin that they've already confessed, but feel sorry for again (BC #1, question 192). I think that is very poor advice, encouraging ongoing guilt over past actions, and also theologically problematic considering that sin has already been forgiven. Again, I object to the overly rigid, intentionally guilt inducing methodology of the book, more than doctrinal statements.

[Renee in NC]

 

No, no , no. In fact I am saying that converts and reverts do not consider those of us who are on the continuum but not as scrupulous as not real catholics. Many here would say that since I am a democrat and all my 70 year old lady friends who are both catholic and democrat are in fact NOT real catholics. I think that the Latin mass only folk are of the ilk that they feel free to embrace the death penalty and fight abortion. I call BS on that. I never , ever meant to say that converts were not real catholics.

 

Thank you for clarifying this - I was thinking :confused:! What did I do?:tongue_smilie: I don't have any intentions of judging whether anyone is or is not Catholic - not even the RCIA teacher I had who disagreed with so many things that the RCC teaches that I wondered *why* she was still Catholic.:lol:

 

Somebody who is serious about following 100% of the Church's teachings would have major problems with BOTH the Republican and Democratic party platforms.

 

:iagree: So much so that in the last election, I voted for who my dh wanted to vote for. He couldn't make it to vote. Otherwise I intended to leave certain parts of my ballot blank as I could not support *either* party.

 

Deleted the rest because I am not up to a debate.

[Crimson Wife]

It recommends some practices I find theologically problematic, such as recommending that if children have no serious sin to confess, they confess some previous sin that they've already confessed, but feel sorry for again (BC #1, question 192).

 

This is a very misleading statement because you've taken it out of context. The full quote is (emphasis mine):

 

192. What should we do when we have committed no mortal sin since our last confession?

 

When we have committed no mortal sin since our last confession, we should confess our venial sins or some sin told in a past confession for which we are again sorry.

 

Children rarely have mortal sins. But the Precious Blood of Jesus cleanses our venial sins and helps us to do better.

 

This language is reassuring to children that their sins typically are minor/venial. And if someone made imperfect contrition of a past sin, it is perfectly acceptable to re-confess it. If it's still on the person's conscience, that's a signal of imperfect contrition.

[Parrothead]

We use Faith & Life and the New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism and I haven't noticed any differences in doctrine between the two.

 

What in the CCC contradicts the BC?

TheBaltimore Catechism is an American document approved by a few of the US bishops. It was never officially approved by the Vatican. Local bishops have the authority to develop and approve different catechisms.

 

That said the Baltimore Catechism was published in 1891. 70-something years later we had the Second Vatican Council. While doctrines did not change after Vat II (doctrines can never be changed) other things did. Personally, while I've never compared the two (other than that page shown earlier in this thread), I prefer to use and teach from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was promulgated by Pope John Paul the Great 1997.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Parrothead

[ElizaG]

I've been thinking about this for a few days... why? I don't know. But I thought I may as well ask since I can't stop thinking about it.

 

Which creed do you say that has "Catholic" with a capitol "C"?

Sorry if I typed this wrong. I'm not sure how it was printed in the missal. I've seen it different ways in prayer books. Either way, it doesn't change what it means to us. Nor does it change how you say it out loud.

 

Catholic culture has a lot of oral residue. This is not stuff you have to floss to get rid of. It means that our liturgy was meant to be said or chanted out loud, so on some deep level, we're not so preoccupied with the details of how the prayers look on a page. Besides which, I'm not sure if they even used capitals in Latin. :confused:

 

(BTW, we said the Apostles' Creed, not the Nicene. In most of the world, the Apostles' Creed is only permitted in children's Masses, but in Canada they had a special dispensation to use it for the whole country. I hope this doesn't say anything about what the Vatican thinks about Canadians. ;) )

[8circles]

Sorry if I typed this wrong. I'm not sure how it was printed in the missal. I've seen it different ways in prayer books. Either way, it doesn't change what it means to us. Nor does it change how you say it out loud.

 

Catholic culture has a lot of oral residue. This is not stuff you have to floss to get rid of. It means that our liturgy was meant to be said or chanted out loud, so on some deep level, we're not so preoccupied with the details of how the prayers look on a page. Besides which, I'm not sure if they even used capitals in Latin. :confused:

 

(BTW, we said the Apostles' Creed, not the Nicene. In most of the world, the Apostles' Creed is only permitted in children's Masses, but in Canada they had a special dispensation to use it for the whole country. I hope this doesn't say anything about what the Vatican thinks about Canadians. ;) )

 

Honest asking, I've never thought about this before. Does "Catholic" & "catholic" mean the same thing to you?

[lamamaloca]

This language is reassuring to children that their sins typically are minor/venial. And if someone made imperfect contrition of a past sin, it is perfectly acceptable to re-confess it. If it's still on the person's conscience, that's a signal of imperfect contrition.

 

The sacrament of confession doesn't require perfect contrition in order for the sin to be forgiven and then to be as far from us "as the East is from the West." Theologically and doctrinally there is NO reason to reconfess a sin that has been confessed.

 

If a confessed sin is on your conscience, that's a sign of scrupulosity.

[lamamaloca]

That said the Baltimore Catechism was published in 1891. 70-something years later we had the Second Vatican Council. While doctrines did not change after Vat II (doctrines can never be changed) other things did.

 

Doctrine DOES develop and there was real development expressed at Vat. II. The Church teaches that she continues to grow in understanding of the Truth which was given to her.

 

"The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her." (From Dei Verbum, a document of Vatican II)

[Parrothead]

Doctrine DOES develop and there was real development expressed at Vat. II. The Church teaches that she continues to grow in understanding of the Truth which was given to her.

 

"The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her." (From Dei Verbum, a document of Vatican II)

 

The way I understand it the church can and does develop a better understanding but doesn't actually change the doctrine.

[lamamaloca]

The way I understand it the church can and does develop a better understanding but doesn't actually change the doctrine.

 

It can't reverse or contradict itself but doctrine can in fact deepen, so that our understanding is greater or we have different language to express the Truth in. The earliest Christians did have the same words in terms of the dogmas of Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception or Papal Authority and Infallibility, and our definitions may have seemed foreign to them. Yet, one can see how these dogmas have deepened and expanded on the Faith of the Early Christians.

 

So yes, there can be "change" in doctrine.

[BBG580]

 

So yes, there can be "change" in doctrine.

 

I'm sure someone will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but I think of there being three "D" areas:

 

Disciplines, like priestly celibacy can and do change.

 

Doctrine, can change unless it is dogmatic doctrine. For instance, the liturgy of the Mass has changed over the course of 2000 years but the Eucharist Feast is still the pinnacle and point of it all.

 

Dogma is irrefutable doctrine that cannot ever be changed. Dogmatic theology like those concerning the sanctity of human life are unalterable.

 

So, all dogma is doctrine of the Church but not all doctrine is dogma. Am I being clear as mud here?! ;)

Edited January 10, 2011 by BBG580

[Murphy101]

We use Faith & Life and the New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism and I haven't noticed any differences in doctrine between the two.

 

What in the CCC contradicts the BC?

 

It does not.

 

The way I read it was she said that one can commit mortal sin then simply go to confession and be absolved.

 

While standing at the checkout line, Sally said, "I'm just going to go ahead and put this candy bar in my purse. I'll go to confession Saturday to confess stealing it and everything will be okay."

 

That is compounding sin with more sin, and definitely not a church teaching.

 

Absolutely not what I said in the least. What I said was that confession absolved them. Not that one should blithely sin and then give lip service to being repentant. In fact, that wouldn't even be a valid confession, which requires being repentant.

 

I think what we are getting into here is more of a debate on which is the best Catholic way - prior to Vat II or after Vat II.

 

Mot in the least. Vat II did not change Catholic doctrine. There is not a pre or a post type of Catholic. There is only one Catholic.

 

I'll challenge anyone who thinks RE teachers are doing a crappy job, to go volunteer at your local parish to teach RE to disrespectful children who would rather be any where else on Sunday mornings. These are the same kids who know that after first communion they won't be required by their parents to go back to RE classes until Confirmation time. That is if their diocese doesn't follow the Restored Order and confirm them prior to FHC.

 

Hey I don't blame just the teachers, most of which who are simply using what they are given and didn't have all that great a religious education themselves growing up. I freely admit there are too many parents doing a crappy job teaching the faith to their kids too.

 

I'd love to see the restored order of sacraments. But that is certainly yet another topic!

[Murphy101]

Hope this makes sense - in a hurry.:)

 

 

This is a very misleading statement because you've taken it out of context. The full quote is (emphasis mine):

 

192. What should we do when we have committed no mortal sin since our last confession?

 

When we have committed no mortal sin since our last confession, we should confess our venial sins or some sin told in a past confession for which we are again sorry.

Children rarely have mortal sins. But the Precious Blood of Jesus cleanses our venial sins and helps us to do better.

 

This language is reassuring to children that their sins typically are minor/venial. And if someone made imperfect contrition of a past sin, it is perfectly acceptable to re-confess it. If it's still on the person's conscience,

that's a signal of imperfect contrition.

 

The sacrament of confession doesn't require perfect contrition in order for the sin to be forgiven and then to be as far from us "as the East is from the West." Theologically and doctrinally there is NO reason to reconfess a sin that has been confessed.

 

If a confessed sin is on your conscience, that's a sign of scrupulosity.

 

Actually, you are both wrong.

 

It is saying a sin that you have previously confessed but AGAIN are sorry for, as in, it is a sin that you have since repeated.

 

For example, if last month I confessed the sin of cussing when angry. Then again this week I find myself to have AGAIN been sorry for doing it, I am not reconfessing the old occasion. I am confessing the newest event of the same sin.

 

Also, perfect confession has nothing to do with being sorry or not. It has to do with WHY you are sorry. Perfect confession means you are sorry for no reason other than you desire to please the lord and are sorry to have not done so. Imperfect contrition means you are sorry mostly because you don't like the negative consequences, hell or whatever.

 

For ANY confession to be valid, you have to actually regret the sin and sincerely desire to avoid repeating it. Obviously, this is a matter that only the penitent and God would be aware of.

[Murphy101]

Tradition changes. (ever so slowly and carefully)

 

Doctrine does not.

[lamamaloca]

It is saying a sin that you have previously confessed but AGAIN are sorry for, as in, it is a sin that you have since repeated.

 

For example, if last month I confessed the sin of cussing when angry. Then again this week I find myself to have AGAIN been sorry for doing it, I am not reconfessing the old occasion. I am confessing the newest event of the same sin.

 

I would have no problem with this, it would go without saying, but to me this does not seem to be what the catechism is stating, as wouldn't you just say "simply confess what sins you have, whether they're venial or mortal?"

 

I have come across the "confess a previously confessed mortal sin" in other places, where it was clearly not meaning a sin committed again, so that is why I understood it that way.

[HRAAB]

I would have no problem with this, it would go without saying, but to me this does not seem to be what the catechism is stating, as wouldn't you just say "simply confess what sins you have, whether they're venial or mortal?"

 

I have come across the "confess a previously confessed mortal sin" in other places, where it was clearly not meaning a sin committed again, so that is why I understood it that way.

 

Actually, I was taught this "confess a previously confessed sin" in Catholic school back in the 60's; so was my dh. I see what Martha is saying, but because of what I was taught in school, I always interpreted that the way you do.

[HRAAB]

Tradition changes. (ever so slowly and carefully)

 

Doctrine does not.

 

But our understanding of doctrine is not static, our understanding is dynamic. Understanding of doctrine does develop.

[HRAAB]

 

Faith and Life or Image of God are quality alternatives, though they simply present the same info as the Baltimore cat in a different format.

 

I haven't found any others that I think are worth the paper they are printed on. The others are often so watered down they are hardly recognizable as Catholic. IMO. Obviously.:)

 

Have you ever seen Living My Religion or Our Holy Faith? I think LMR is out of print, but you can still buy OHF. I keep trying to find someone that has used these, bit it doesn't seem many people have.

[Murphy101]

Have you ever seen Living My Religion or Our Holy Faith? I think LMR is out of print, but you can still buy OHF. I keep trying to find someone that has used these, bit it doesn't seem many people have.

 

No to the first, maybe on the second. I'd have to go check. I think I might, but I might just be remembering it from a catelog.:)

[Catwoman]

FWIW, I don't think that one's preference for Mass in Latin vs. the vernacular should be used as a "litmus test" for devout Catholicism.

 

I agree with you -- I hope my post didn't make it sound like the Latin mass was somehow superior to the English version! I just meant that, when I was a kid, it seemed more special that way.

 

Cat

[Murphy101]

I would have no problem with this, it would go without saying, but to me this does not seem to be what the catechism is stating, as wouldn't you just say "simply confess what sins you have, whether they're venial or mortal?"

 

I have come across the "confess a previously confessed mortal sin" in other places, where it was clearly not meaning a sin committed again, so that is why I understood it that way.

 

I think it might be trying to do two things:

 

Ask the penitent to consider that a previously confessed sin was not properly confessed, iow, was not actually repented.

 

Also, I think it could be trying to make clear that confessing a sin once does not absolve future similar acts.

 

I will say when my kids have told me they have nothing to confess, I have told them to consider whether they need to confess the same sins from a previous confession. I have heard RE teachers suggest the same. None of my children have taken that to mean to confess the exact same event, (i just asked them what they thought the phrase meant) but rather if they have since repeated that sin to again confess it.

 

I suppose I can see your POV, but again that seems a side effect of bad instruction because if confession absolved a sin, then you can't have it reabsolved. That makes no sense. It would seem anyone who thought they had to reconfess a sin they had truely been repentant of doesn't understand what being absolved means. It seems a simple practice of logic to me. Which admittedly a child needs instruction to follow.:)

[Murphy101]

I'm sure someone will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but I think of there being three "D" areas:

 

Disciplines, like priestly celibacy can and do change.

 

Doctrine, can change unless it is dogmatic doctrine. For instance, the liturgy of the Mass has changed over the course of 2000 years but the Eucharist Feast is still the pinnacle and point of it all. the liturgy of the mass is NOT part if doctrine. :)

 

Dogma is irrefutable doctrine that cannot ever be changed. Dogmatic theology like those concerning the sanctity of human life are unalterable.

 

So, all dogma is doctrine of the Church but not all doctrine is dogma. Am I being clear as mud here?! ;)

 

 

No. I see it. Some minor disagreement, but there are various degrees of doctrine. Some of what you are lumping in with doctrine is actually tradition with either a big T (unchanging) or a little t (possibly changing).

 

I had to use a phone a friend for there to be sure! :D

Edited January 10, 2011 by Martha

[Murphy101]

But our understanding of doctrine is not static, our understanding is dynamic. Understanding of doctrine does develop.

 

Lest you step in murky waters there...

 

That sounds an awful like we get to base what doctrine is on our personal interpretation of it or popular opinion changes doctrine...?

 

Care to share an example of how understanding changed doctrine? Most of doctrine is pretty clear cut, but I am open to learning.:)

[HRAAB]

I have used the BC off and on with my girls. I imagine that most people who use it do not live in a vacuum; they are at Mass on Sunday, listening to the sermon, discussing teachings with the children. At least, I hope they do, and the homeschoolers I know certainly do. I have the CCC and use it constantly; it is the most ratty looking book in my house due to use. But I have not found it age appropriate for my elementary children. Maybe some people have been successful using it for younger children, but I haven't. I have looked at several of the new catechisms, including the one our parish uses, and I am not impressed.

 

So if anyone knows of a catechism set up similar to the format of the BC and is based directly off of the CCC, let me know. I would love it. Until then, I use what I have, and we talk and then talk some more.

[BBG580]

No. I see it. Some minor disagreement, but there is various degrees of doctrine. Some of what you are lumping in with doctrine is actually tradition with either a big T (unchanging) or a little t (possibly changing).

 

I had to use a phone a friend for there to be sure! :D

 

OK, that makes sense. But not all doctrine is dogma but all dogma is doctrine.

 

I wrestled with this for a long time while studying to enter the Church and I read something to this effect over at CA on the Apologists forum. It is confusing, since there is no one list of all the specific dogmas that the Church teaches in one spot (at least not that I've found, point in the right direction if I am off track here), it is all just sort of rolled up in with the overarching category of Doctrine. I know there are books published about Catholic dogma but they haven't been produced by the RC itself. Obviously we have the Creeds but those are not completely encompassing of all the dogma that the Church teaches is infallible, unchangable truth.

 

I think this is why people get so confused about what, how and why the RC changes things over the course of history.

[Murphy101]

So if anyone knows of a catechism set up similar to the format of the BC and is based directly off of the CCC, let me know. I would love it. Until then, I use what I have, and we talk and then talk some more.

 

Faith and Life would probably fit your criteria. :)

[HRAAB]

Lest you step in murky waters there...

 

That sounds an awful like we get to base what doctrine is on our personal interpretation of it or popular opinion changes doctrine...?

 

Care to share an example of how understanding changed doctrine? Most of doctrine is pretty clear cut, but I am open to learning.:)

 

I never said our understanding changed doctrine. I said our understanding of it can develop. I think there is a big difference there.

 

I'm no theologian by a million miles, but this is what I mean. For instance, the belief in transubstantiation, the Trinity, the hypostatic union are beliefs that have deepened and become better understood over the centuries. Not changed, but our understanding of them have grown and become more profound.

 

I actually find it a rather sad thought to think that our understanding of God, Jesus, our faith will never deepen or grow over the centuries; that it is static and remains the same as it was 2000 years ago. I cannot believe the first Christians had the same understanding of doctrine that we do today.

 

eta: we in the year 2011 have the benefit of Councils, theologians, saints' writings and teachings. As I expect people in the future to benefit from theologians and saints yet to be born. Just trying to make clear what I want to say.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Ishki

[HRAAB]

Faith and Life would probably fit your criteria. :)

 

I'm probably odd that way, but I like the BC better than Faith and Life. The questions in Faith and Life are hard to memorize (yeah, I make my kids memorize). The BC seems to be more to the point although I wish it had more explanation sometimes. What I meant was a catechism with the question and answer format of the BC but referencing the CCC.

 

I'm not expecting to find one.

[Crimson Wife]

I think it might be trying to do two things:

 

Ask the penitent to consider that a previously confessed sin was not properly confessed, iow, was not actually repented.

 

That's what I was trying to get at. :)

[lamamaloca]

Ask the penitent to consider that a previously confessed sin was not properly confessed, iow, was not actually repented.

 

 

I don't think that you should be encouraging ANYONE to do this. It could potentially result in constant worry over one was repentant enough. If you are repentant enough to go to confession, the grace of the sacrament covers all and you don't need to worry, or even consider for one single moment, that a sin "wasn't actually repented."

[ElizaG]

When you go to confession even though you have no mortal sins on your soul, this is called "devotional confession" or "optional confession." Devotional confession is done out of love for God, and a desire to benefit from the graces of the sacrament. It's encouraged by the Church and is required in some situations, e.g., to receive a plenary indulgence, or among certain members of religious orders. (Nuns were previously expected to go to confession once a week. Archbishop Sheen said that hearing nuns' confessions was like being stoned to death with popcorn. :D )

 

With a devotional confession, you need to confess something so that the sacrament will be valid. Most people confess venial sins, but if you can't think of any, it's also acceptable to mention a previously confessed sin. In this case, the penitent would understand that the sin had already been forgiven, but would be presenting it again for the sake of the sacramental form.

 

I can see that this practice could cause trouble if it weren't explained properly. I don't remember being taught it as a child, though I do remember often having trouble coming up with a sin to confess. Looking back, I must have been much better behaved than my own children. Or maybe I just had a bad memory! ;)

[ElizaG]

Honest asking, I've never thought about this before. Does "Catholic" & "catholic" mean the same thing to you?

Obviously, "catholic" is an adjective that can be used in other contexts ("a catholic taste in music"). But when it's used to modify the noun "church," then yes, I'd say it means the same to me however it's capitalized.

 

Wikipedia quotes St. Augustine, circa 400 AD:

 

"And so, lastly, does the very name of 'Catholic', which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house."

 

(I have no idea if those capitals were in the original!)

[LauraGB]

Eleanor, can I just say I think you are super cool and I wish you'd post more often? I've enjoyed reading your input in this thread very much. :)

[HeidiKC]

It looks like your son is in first grade. They'll probably learn more about sin when he's preparing for his First Confession (which happens before First Communion, often in 2nd grade). If not, there would be rather a gaping hole in the curriculum.

 

"Bless me Father, for I have... um... hey, why am I in here anyway?" :001_huh: :D

 

BTW, I just checked, and the book that contains the image of the two little boys is used by Kolbe, Catholic Heritage Curricula, and Mother of Divine Grace, as well as Seton. I'm pretty sure those are the four most popular Catholic homeschool programs, at least in my area. They all make use of other books as well, but the 1963 St. Joseph First Communion Catechism evidently isn't considered to be dangerous when used as directed. (No actual small boys were harmed in the production, either. ;) )

 

Well, you're right about them learning more about sin in 2nd grade! (My oldest son went to school through 4th grade). I just meant that sin isn't taught in a scary way and made to be such a huge deal, like it seems there was 50+ years ago in Catholic schools.

 

Wow! I'm surprised that book is still used - I thought it must be an old one! Just so non-Catholics understand, most of the Catholic homeschoolers I've met seem to be VERY traditional and seems like they'd be more likely to embrace pre-Vatican II ideas or images. I can't imagine an image like that in a Catholic school today! I'm not putting the image down, it is just very different from the curriculum taught today.

[lamamaloca]

When you go to confession even though you have no mortal sins on your soul, this is called "devotional confession" or "optional confession." Devotional confession is done out of love for God, and a desire to benefit from the graces of the sacrament. It's encouraged by the Church and is required in some situations, e.g., to receive a plenary indulgence, or among certain members of religious orders. (Nuns were previously expected to go to confession once a week. Archbishop Sheen said that hearing nuns' confessions was like being stoned to death with popcorn. :D )

 

With a devotional confession, you need to confess something so that the sacrament will be valid. Most people confess venial sins, but if you can't think of any, it's also acceptable to mention a previously confessed sin. In this case, the penitent would understand that the sin had already been forgiven, but would be presenting it again for the sake of the sacramental form.

 

Which is a great example of a tradition or discipline developing which is at odds with good theology. One should not need to be remembering already confessed sins, they're gone. But I also can't quite imagine not being able to come up with a single small foible to confess.

Edited January 11, 2011 by lamamaloca