Normally, when considering the pastoral care of a parish, one thinks of celebrating Mass, particularly on Sundays, as well as the hearing of confessions. There are also baptismal and marriage preparations. Likewise, there are various forms of counseling—comforting those who have lost a loved one through death, aiding those who are struggling with all sorts of personal, marital, or family problems.
The list of issues that a parish priest is confronted with could be extended almost ad infinitum. However, what role the Church’s traditional, magisterial doctrines play within a pastoral context is rarely, if ever, considered. What do doctrines have to do with one’s ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill life? Do they make any difference as to the manner in which one lives? Sadly, the answer to these questions is often “little.”
Part of the problem, though not exclusively, is that the Church’s doctrines are sometimes portrayed in a negative manner, occasionally by those ordained ministers, priests, and bishops, who, ironically, are appointed to proclaim and defend them. Such neglect can even be found at the highest levels—Rome not excluded. The traditional doctrines of the Church can be depicted as dead, lifeless, abstract, academic remnants from the past. They are relics that should now be thrown into the dustbin of history. What is needed instead are some new, creative ecclesial teachings that are relevant to today’s cultural milieu. Something that is pertinent to the contemporary world in which people actually live. Something that is more theologically elastic, given the different moral and doctrinal mindsets of a multitude of modern-day “educated” Catholics.
However, is such an assessment of the Church’s ancient doctrines appropriate, and is it correct? To answer this question, one needs to determine what a “doctrine” or a “dogma” is.
Given the negative reading of the word “doctrine,” the Church’s doctrines may be better termed the mysteries of faith. These mysteries are those doctrines that have either been dogmatically defined or that have become part of the Church’s authentic teaching over the course of centuries—often going back to biblical and apostolic origins. Thus, one can enumerate some of the most significant doctrines of the Church—the Trinity, the Incarnation, the divinity of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit, the resurrection of the body, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption. Many of the mysteries of the faith can be found in various creeds, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is professed every Sunday and on liturgical Solemnities.
Here, two points must be made. First, many of these doctrines were defined because various heresies arose during the course of time. For example, in the fourth century, a priest by the name of Arius denied that Jesus was truly the Son of God. Rather, Arius declared that he was a creature, though the first of all that was created and the most like God. The bishops at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), in response to Arius’s denial, declared that Jesus is the “only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through whom all things were made.”
Thus, contrary to Arius, the Fathers professed what had been proclaimed in the New Testament and what had been believed from the time of the Apostles. Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father, and so is God, as the Father is God. Being God as the Father is God, Jesus is consubstantial with the Father, that is, he possesses the same divine nature as the Father. The one God is, therefore, the interrelationship between God the Father and God the Son. Moreover, Jesus, the Son of God, “for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”
Thus, both the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Incarnation were dogmatically defined at the Council of Nicaea. Jesus, he who is God as the Father is God, is the same Son who came to exist as man. These truths were doctrinally defined to ensure a proper understanding of salvation. If Jesus were not God, he could not have saved us, for only God can achieve our salvation. Likewise, if Jesus were not man, he could not have saved us who are men, for we were the ones in need of salvation.
Similarly, when the divinity of the Holy Spirit was called into question, the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD) declared that “the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, proceeds from the Father.” (Much later, within the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit was said “to proceed from the Father and the Son. This continues to be the case.) Nonetheless, the doctrinal point is that as the Son is begotten of the Father and so is truly and fully God, so the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, is equally truly and fully God. The Spirit, then, is the divine Lord along with the Son. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is also the giver of life in that, through his indwelling within those who have been baptized, he is the guarantee of eternal life. Thus, the one God is the interrelationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
What is perceived here is that the doctrines defined at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople were already proclaimed in the New Testament. What the Councils did was to ensure that the faith that was already found within Scripture was clearly defended, preserved, and professed. What is also evident here is that doctrines embody the truths of divine revelation, and they do so that the faithful may know, in faith, what truths reside in the mysteries of the—what they need to believe for their salvation.
Second, because doctrines are revealed truth, they are frequently conceived exclusively as providing knowledge—knowledge that was not known prior to its being revealed. Thus, only within the Incarnation of the Son of God did Jesus reveal the Trinity, that is, both the Father and the Holy Spirit. However, such an understanding is a faulty interpretation of divine revelation and the mysteries of faith. The mysteries of faith are not simply known as truths apart from oneself, but they are doctrinal truths of which and in which one participates. Here, a couple of examples would be helpful.
When we are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we are taken up into the very life of the Trinity itself—the primary and principal mystery of faith from which all other mysteries find their source. As adopted children, through the transforming work of the Holy Spirit, we are conformed into the likeness of Jesus the Son, whereupon we become adopted children of the Father. The Trinity is not just a mystery of faith that we know, but a mystery into which we have been assumed.
Moreover, through the sacrament of baptism, we also become members of the Body of Christ, wherein the risen Jesus is the head, and we become one body in him. We, in the life and love of the Holy Spirit, become one living reality in Christ. This twofold baptismal mystery of faith has now become a mystery into which we, as Christians, have become members.
Likewise, a mystery of our faith is found in Jesus’ work of our salvation. Over two thousand years ago, Jesus, as the great high priest, offered himself on the cross as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. He rose gloriously from the dead so that we might have everlasting life. However, we must participate in these saving mysteries if we are to reap their salvific benefits.
But how is that sharing possible when we now live long after Jesus’ death and resurrection? Again, as with sharing in the life of the Trinity through the sacrament of baptism and having become members of Christ’s body, so here we now share in these saving mysteries of our faith through the Mass. In the Mass, through the action of the ordained priest, as well as through the priesthood of the baptized laity, Jesus’ once and for all sacrificial death is made present, and in the Mass all participants are conjoined to that one saving sacrifice which is offered to the Father for the forgiveness of sins. Having offered to the Father this once and for all saving sacrifice of the crucified Jesus, we possess the privilege and right to receive Jesus in holy communion. We partake of the risen-given-up-body of Christ and the risen-poured-out-blood of Christ. We are literally in communion with the risen Jesus himself and with one another. Through baptism, we become members of Christ’s body, and in the Eucharist, we are ushered into the fullest expression of that mystical union with Christ here on earth.
This Eucharistic mystery of faith becomes, then, the eschatological anticipation of its completion—the full maturity of Christ’s body of which we are members, and thus the complete sharing in the life of the Most Holy Trinity. In Jesus, the Son, in communion with the Holy Spirit, we fully become the Father’s adopted children.
The above examples of coming to share in the mysteries of our faith are, then, prolegomena for why doctrine is of pastoral significance. Without these and other mysteries of faith, pastoral practice would lose its heart, which is what the care of the faithful, both clergy and laity alike, is all about. The Church itself is that mystery wherein all the mysteries of faith find their home and from which they are made available to all. To participate in the ecclesial and sacramental life of the Church is to be subsumed into all the doctrines, all the mysteries, it proclaims and defends.
In this light, bishops, priests, and deacons are ordained to be pastoral ministers of these mysteries, these living doctrines of faith. They do so in at least a twofold fashion. First, they must proclaim clearly and steadfastly, in homilies, addresses, and sometimes in writing, the fullness of the Church’s doctrinal teaching. Only by doing so will the lay faithful come to an ever-deeper knowledge of the mysteries of faith and so participate in them in an ever more worthy and appreciative manner. The ultimate goal is that all, again, clergy and laity alike, grow in their love for the mysteries of faith, the mysteries of which they are members. All are to glory, in wonder and awe, in the Church’s doctrines, for they are the breath upon which the Body of Christ breathes and the lifeblood upon which all are nourished.
Second, given the above, pastors are to contemplate the mysteries of the faith, for only then can they competently speak about them. In accordance with the old scholastic principle, one can only give what one has. Pastors must know and love the doctrines of the Church if they are to communicate that knowledge and engender that love to the faithful.
In all the above, I hope that I have demonstrated the relevance of doctrine within a pastoral setting. Far from not being needed, the Church’s doctrinal tradition is of supreme importance today, for many of the faithful can often be almost completely ignorant of the saving mysteries of our faith. This lack of knowledge, in turn, fosters an ambivalence concerning them. If the Church is to be renewed in the Spirit of truth, what we need now is a robust preaching and teaching of Catholic doctrine—the mysteries of our beloved Faith.
(Editor’s note: This essay was published originally in slightly different form on the “What We Need Now” site and is republished here with kind permission of the author.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
It is a curious fact that the Catechism of the Council of Trent* comprises a week by week “sermon program” which claims in the footnote to embrace “a complete course in Christian doctrine.”
So, what went wrong? And when?
Tan editions, 2017. Pages
1. Father Weinandy is a true gift to the Church. I don’t think he would ever have aspired to it but he would have made a truly great bishop.
2. If anyone wants an exaample of the kind of preaching of doctrine Fr. Weinandy is talking about, search for the 5 minute testimony Secretary of State Rubio presented at the Memorial Service for Charlie Kirk; you will be edified.
3. On a particular Sunday at my parish church in South Carolina, it was my turn to preach at the Masses. I was inspired to address the issue of abortion. I took a risk. At the 8 am Mass, after I had finished, the congregation all applauded. It took me by surprise as that never happens at Catholic Mass. At the 10 am more solemn Mass, I preached the same homily. This time, at the end, there was a standing ovation with a very long applause. It was proof that when you have the courage to preach Church teaching and doctrine, the people’s hearts will be rendered asunder. (If anyone is interested in that homily, you can access it online as a parishioner asked me afterward if he could post it. Google: “Every day is Newtown in America.”)
Thank you Deacon for taking the risk!
You’re welcome. Speaking Truth means you run the risk of being murdered. Ask Christ; He found out firsthand.
“It was proof that when you have the courage to preach Church teaching and doctrine, the people’s hearts will be rendered asunder”. Deacon your experience confirms a vital truth. It’s the fire for which we call Paul The Apostle.
Here in Chicago Area, I have never heard a sermon on abortion. Preaching slides by the issue by saying all life is important. While this is a truism, it slides by or overlooks the fact of the killing of millions of babies by abortion. The applause you received I think is that many of those in your parish are in effect saying, Finally someone in Church authority has the internal fortitude to speak out on this important Catholic Dogma. Congrats to you Deacon Ed. Will be going to Google to find it, hope it is still there.
Thanks. And I agree with your assessment of their applause. It wasn’t that I am the consummate homilist but that people (not just Catholics) are thirsting to hear the Truth spoken.
By the way, the homily is still there, accessed by googling: “Every day is Newtown in America”
It’s hard to articulate precisely what the problem is with this article. Perhaps I can start here: You write: “Part of the problem, though not exclusively, is that the Church’s doctrines are sometimes portrayed in a negative manner, occasionally by those ordained ministers, priests, and bishops, who, ironically, are appointed to proclaim and defend them”.
But Christ called us to proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God. But you are saying that we are called to proclaim doctrine. We have gone from proclaiming a Person who saved us and loves us, to proclaiming teaching about a Person (about his nature, how his mother was conceived, the Trinity, etc).
You write: “We are literally in communion with the risen Jesus himself and with one another. Through baptism, we become members of Christ’s body, and in the Eucharist, we are ushered into the fullest expression of that mystical union with Christ here on earth. This Eucharistic mystery of faith becomes, then, the eschatological anticipation of its completion—the full maturity of Christ’s body of which we are members, and thus the complete sharing in the life of the Most Holy Trinity.”
Okay, that’s all very eloquent, but we are still left with a pastor who has very little to do with the parish, very little social outreach, who thinks liturgy is all about him, who is still arrogant towards those who he realizes see right through him, who turns people off and has driven so many from the parish, who belittles women, and a bishop who is indifferent to all this–and yet both of them have passed their theology in the seminary. When we descend from the clouds of theological poetry into the actual life of the parish, we see something completely different.
You write: “In all the above, I hope that I have demonstrated the relevance of doctrine within a pastoral setting.”
No, you have not.
You continue: “Far from not being needed, the Church’s doctrinal tradition is of supreme importance today, for many of the faithful can often be almost completely ignorant of the saving mysteries of our faith. This lack of knowledge, in turn, fosters an ambivalence concerning them.”
What is of supreme importance today is the proclamation of the good news of the gospel, not sterile doctrine. And I say sterile not because teaching about the Trinity, about Christ, the Eucharist, etc., is unimportant or useless, but rather because it does not necessarily give rise to a living parish, a welcoming parish, a parish whose faithful feel loved and appreciated and whose talents are employed to serve the wider community. In other words, you can have a sterile parish, as are so many today, but sound doctrine from the pulpit. There is no doubt that good teaching about “who Christ is” is very important, but that does not cut it. That is not sufficient. What people need is the good news of the kingdom. Can you translate that for the faithful? Not in eloquent phrases, but into real action? They need Christ, who went out and associated with society’s rejects, who spoke to the Samaritan woman, who ate with tax collectors and sinners, who challenged the religious leaders, their hypocrisy, their legalism, their love of ritual and ritual purity over the love of neighbour, or like many of today’s pastors, their love of vestments and good posture over the poorly dressed man in the pews, the Christ who healed on the Sabbath day, who taught that we will be judged not on our knowledge of doctrine, but on how we treated the least of his brethren, the hungry, the thirsty, the sick, the imprisoned, the naked, etc. You can talk all you want about “being taken up into the risen life of Christ” or “being ushered into the fullest expression of that mystical union with Christ on earth”, etc., but what does that mean in concrete terms? I tell you what: go out and find a street bum, buy him lunch, eat with him, have a conversation with him, learn as much as you can about him, and receive his blessing afterwards. I submit that this will be a genuine “eschatological anticipation of its completion–the full maturity of Christ’s body of which we are members, and thus the complete sharing in the life of the Most Holy Trinity”.
Christ and His teaching (doctrine: from the Latin docere) are one and the same thing. We know Christ through His teaching and enter into Communion with Him through the Eucharist.
“A good perspective and well presented,” said the one-eyed cyclops…
The opposite problem, addressed by Weinandry, is that of a pastoral life amputated from doctrine–that of branding doctrine as “sterile, bigoted, fixistic, rigid and backwardist.” The opportunity and necessity, now, after twelve years of “making a mess” of things, is that of (yes!) being pastoral (maybe even including an authentic “2028 Ecclesial Assembly” WITHIN the “hierarchical communion” of the Church–Lumen Gentium). And, also, with the accountability of the apostolic succession, and councils, and real “synods of bishops” still intact–rather than virtually displaced by a doormat “process” orchestrated by “facilitator” bishops.
For the Mystical Body of Christ as both charismatic and institutional: How to walk and chew gum at the same time?
Your entire comment, not surprisingly, is premised on a false conflict between doctrine and Christ, between teaching and the Gospel. I see it all the time, especially from those who think of “doctrine” as sterile teaching, rather than the proclamation of truths about Christ and salvation given to the Church by Christ Himself. The falsity of your assertions can be seen in this simple fact: You talk about “the good news of of the Kingdom of God” as though it has nothing to with doctrine/teaching. But, how, exactly, do you know of the good news and the Kingdom of God? Through teaching and doctrine, presented in various forms, of course. And Christ himself taught doctrinal truth about Himself. You might want to ponder what is stated in “Dei Verbum,” which explains all of this quite well. For example:
You write: “Your entire comment, not surprisingly, is premised on a false conflict between doctrine and Christ, between teaching and the Gospel.”
Not so fast. You didn’t read my post carefully enough–assuming that you were referring to me. I do not claim there is a conflict at all. But there is a distinction.
You say: “I see it all the time, especially from those who think of “doctrine” as sterile teaching, rather than the proclamation of truths about Christ and salvation given to the Church by Christ Himself.”
Again, you should have read more carefully. I said: “What is of supreme importance today is the proclamation of the good news of the gospel, not sterile doctrine. And I say sterile not because teaching about the Trinity, about Christ, the Eucharist, etc., is unimportant or useless, but rather because it does not necessarily give rise to a living parish, a welcoming parish, a parish whose faithful feel loved and appreciated and whose talents are employed to serve the wider community. In other words, you can have a sterile parish, as are so many today, but sound doctrine from the pulpit. There is no doubt that good teaching about “who Christ is” is very important, but that does not cut it. That is not sufficient. What people need is the good news of the kingdom. Can you translate that for the faithful?”
So you missed the point entirely. The good news of the gospel is Christ’s resurrection and the new life that he gives us freely, gratuitously. It is the good news of salvation, the good news of our deliverance. If you want to call that “doctrine”, great, but the examples that Father W provided were the following: “Thus, one can enumerate some of the most significant doctrines of the Church—the Trinity, the Incarnation, the divinity of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit, the resurrection of the body, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption”. Again, as I said, these are not unimportant or useless, but to think that the proclamation of the good news is the same as proclaiming from the pulpit the formulated Christological and Trinitarian dogmas of the early councils is ludicrous. Reading scripture is life-giving and life transforming, but Denzinger theology is not–albeit it has its place.
You continue: “The falsity of your assertions can be seen in this simple fact: You talk about “the good news of of the Kingdom of God” as though it has nothing to with doctrine/teaching”.
No, that’s not what I said. That’s your spin, so that you won’t have to listen to what I actually said.
The text you provided from Dei Verbum is wonderful, but it does not refute what I said. For example,
“But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them “the authority to teach in their own place.”(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).”
That first part (section 7?) refers to “Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments”. As I said, Scripture is the word of God. The priest kisses the gospel after reading it at the Mass. We don’t do that to the Denzinger. The collection of dogmas is not unimportant, but it is not what Christ called us to proclaim, and it is hardly the solution to our problems.
You also cited the following from DV: “Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.”
Right on! Everything that contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith. An abstract discourse on the Trinity, or the Incarnation, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption can indeed be a sterile proclamation that leaves everyone uninspired. This is not the same as the Sermon on the Mount or the words of Christ himself. There is an opus operatum of the word of God, but not an opus operatum of the Denzinger.
Father W said at the beginning: “What do doctrines have to do with one’s ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill life? Do they make any difference as to the manner in which one lives?” If the laity are going to ask that question–and it is a good question–, you’d better show very clearly how they make a difference in the manner in which one lives and what they have to do with ordinary run-of -the-mill life. The problem is that this is typically neglected, which is why there is an aversion to Denzinger style sermons. Mother Teresa is a great example of what it means to proclaim Christ. Think of the thousands of Hindus who converted to Christianity because of her. “Is Jesus anything like you?” they would ask. She said that she was trying to be like him, and that was enough for them. She gave them Christ, not doctrine. She can say with Paul: “It is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me”. That’s what it means to proclaim Christ, and that’s effective. Doctrine has its place, but the faithful want a Person. It’s similar to the distinction between a scientific knowledge of a mother and the child’s connatural knowledge of his own mother. The psychologist has a better scientific understanding of that boy’s mother (after a battery of tests), but the boy knows his mother much more deeply than the psychologist.
Thomas James, why, your “distinguishing” Mother Teresa and doctrine is sterilizing!
I must say.
It is in fact one of the diverting thoughts affecting thousands in recent history.
“… a living parish, a welcoming parish, a parish whose faithful feel loved and appreciated and whose talents are employed to serve the wider community.” I think our diocese just closed three of those types of parishes which couldn’t compete with the one’s that are thriving on Catholic doctrine (i.e. the Gospel of Jesus Christ).
Fr. Weinandry recalls Nicaea (etc.) as an act of steadfast memory of received Trinitarian truths maintained from the beginning. Meaning that, as a “synod”, Nicaea was not the contemporary version of synodalism practiced a bit too much as amnesiac and roundtable groupthink.
Three additional and supportive comments:
FIRST, Revelation also pertains to the nature of man, as recalled by the Second Vatican Council: “Christ the Lord…by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to himself [!] and makes his supreme calling clear” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 22).
SECOND, about the nature of man, the inborn and universal Natural Law is also doctrinal truth and now is an explicit part of the Magisterium. Clericalists intent on “stretching the grey area” have deployed an ambiguous “synodality” as the means to separate pastoral practice from such doctrinal truth. Doctrine is repeated, but with sociological exemptions. This gambit was anticipated and already addressed in Veritatis Splendor (1993)–which now protects against any further word games that one or two of the post-synodal Study Groups might want to market in their reports scheduled for December of this year (2025).
THIRD, Some relevant wording from Veritatis Splendor, as an encyclical and therefore more than any groupthink or Study Group report:
“A separation, or even an opposition [!], is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [no longer a ‘moral judgment’!] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions [!] contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [thou shalt not!]” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 56).
And, “This is the first time, in fact, that the MAGISTERIUM of the Church [caps added] has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this [‘moral’] teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment necessary in practical and cultural situations which are complex and even crucial” (n. 115).
And, “The Church is no way the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95).
On synodalism affecting pastoral practice, if or when the priest splits the essential spiritual direction with laymen the core of it would be lost and then both the identity and effects of the participation could not be ascertained. This is very serious you know.
Speaking now as though to a large audience: Has this ever happened in your experience?
Thank you for everything. This article amazes me. It is like the entire first part of the Catechism in a few paragraphs. More, it is amazing because it needs to be written for pastors! It’s so clean and simple, like baby food. The title is like:
The Nutritional Value of Food: Why Nutritionists Need to Know and Teach Nutrition.
What has become of our Church?! If a Pastor does not know doctrine, he can only offer his own opinions, ideologies, prejudices, etc. Who in their right mind would continue to weekly worship of anyone other than Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
Oy veh! Apparently , what we need now is to begin again. This article is an excellent start.
Perhaps if we went back to the old Baltimore catechism, we could implant the basic truths in the head at an early age , then weekly homilies could eventually cultivate them in the heart. Rote memory is not an entirely bad thing. It creates a foundation that can be built upon.
Baltimore Catechism was like building a house. First you lay the foundation- strong and undeniably sturdy (Baltimore Catechism). And then you move to complete the structure where you will live – suitable for your particular life circumstances and with beauty, besides mere functionality. But without starting with an adequate foundation, you’d be like the man who built his house on sand.
A very good article as far as it goes, but I would say it does not go far enough. All of the books that I have seen with titles along the lines of “Foundations of Catholic/Christian Doctrine” have two parts – Faith and Morality – what we believe and what we do based on that belief.
I would say that in our society/culture today that moral doctrines are the ones most in need of teaching/preaching.
Many surveys/polls show that 90% of Catholic couples of child bearing age either are practicing or have practiced artificial contraception, many believe in IVF where multiple young human lives are destroyed, believe in so called same sex marriage if they “love” each other, and on and on. Check CARA polling, and I could also give anecdotal evidence from my own parish of weekly mass going Catholics.
I have not heard a moral homily (I do not count the annual October pro-life talk) in decades. ( I look forward to accessing Deacon Peitler’s homily). St. Paul had no trouble addressing the moral aspects of our faith and the consequences – his successors not so much.
Does a weekly mass going Catholic who prays, does his best to obey the commandments, receives the sacraments, but does not have a grasp of the finer points of the doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation risk loosing eternal salvation? Or does the person who does not obey the commandments risk loosing eternal salvation?
Our doctrines on faith are truly important, but I think that they are the low hanging fruit. Preaching moral doctrine will result in some degree of blowback. People will not take hearing something on the Trinity which they did not previously know personally, but they will take preaching on a moral issue they have not followed personally.
In response to Thomas James comment: you use the phrase “sterile doctrine”. Doctrine is another word for truth. Something is either true or not – sterile has nothing to do with it. You describe a very pleasant Church, but we must keep in mind Jesus words that “Not those who say Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but rather those who do the will of my Father.”
Fr Weinandy references a sophisticate cynicism that entered the mind of the Church presenting doctrine as archaic, out of touch with ‘concrete reality’, what Christ’s love is really about. Francis I used the term rules. Those contemptible rules that were impediments to compassion. We became wiser than God. Although a God that was thought to be perceived by those radical traditionalists as an immovable glacier. What progressives offered us was an infantile doodling with the sacred.
Whereas Apostolic doctrine, as addressed above by knowledgeable commenters, is really Christ revealing himself, God from God, Light from Light.. What is perceived by those who are aware of this Light is the boldness and character of divine love. Love that inspires moral heroism.
About stuff that’s concrete and that stuff that’s allegedly abstract and not concrete, how might we factor in this from Cardinal Newman:
“The heart is commonly reached, not through reason, but through the imagination, by means of direct impressions, by the testimony of facts and events, by history, by description. Persons influence us, voices melt us, looks subdue us, deeds inflame us. Many a man will live and die upon a dogma: no man will be a martyr for a conclusion. A conclusion is but an opinion; it is not a thing which is. . . . No one, I say, will die for his own calculations; he dies for realities” (The Grammar of Assent).
“If the Church is to be renewed in the Spirit of truth, what we need now is a robust preaching and teaching of Catholic doctrine—the mysteries of our beloved Faith.”
“Come Holy Ghost.”
“1. Come Holy Ghost, Creator Blest,
And in our hearts take up Thy rest;
Come with Thy grace and heav’nly aid,
To fill the hearts which Thou has made,
To fill the hearts which Thou has made.
2. O Comfort Blest to Thee we cry,
Thou heav’nly Gift of God most high;
Thou fount of life and fire of love,
And sweet anointing from above,
And sweet anointing from above.
3. Praise be to Thee Father and Son,
And Holy Spirit Three in one;
And may the Son on us bestow
The gifts that from the Spirit flow,
The gifts that from the Spirit flow.”
Weinandy tells us that traditional Church doctrine teaches us how to love. There’s a radical difference from an ethic based on human freedom, which isn’t always correct and most often wanders from the natural law within that God has written on our hearts. Without grace, the gift received by faith in Christ we are bound to pursue what satisfies human passion rather than justice.
Our Church since 2013 has embarked on a journey of exploration with the aim of togetherness – as if the Way, the Truth, and the Life has not been revealed. With that as a major concern we’ve been offered a new gospel, Amoris Laetitia. A gospel that places priority on the human condition, Man’s brokenness, wounded, in need of mercy, and mitigation of static rules.
Whereas Christ reveals the Father’s response by the pouring out of his blood on the Cross, and rising from the dead – that we who believe with faith be given the gracious gifts that raise us to a life of spiritual justice and love, and eternal life.
Father Joseph Mattam S.J, in 2012, wrote:
“The evangelisation work in the past emphasized a great deal (far too much) the importance of dogmas, doctrines and statements of faith formulated and taught by the Church. Faith itself was understood as an assent to these truths. Catechism books emphasized doctrines and children had just to memorize many unintelligible formulae. This emphasis had devastating consequences like heresy hunting, the Inquisition, burning of heretics, torture, witch-burning and other cruelties in the name of the God, and divisions in the Body of Christ.There was a time when people were in awe of words like ‘hypostatic union’, ‘transubstantiation’, ‘consubstantial’, etc, but today people just do not care about these and similar words; they just ignore such. I am not saying that doctrinal developments are unnecessary; they all had their reason at certain time in history; but now we need to go back to the Gospels and present Jesus to the people. What was originally a revolutionary, counter-cultural movement became dogmatic and ritualistic rather than being faithful to its original call to be radical, revolutionary and prophetic. There was also a shift from experiencing Jesus to thinking and talking about Jesus.”
https://www.churchauthority.org/being-church-in-asia-new-evangelization-and-challenges-mattam/
Father Weinandy’s article is just an appeal to return to the old paradigm.
You are right to emphasize that faith is not simply memorizing formulas but a living encounter with Jesus Christ. Over-intellectualism can make the faith appear dry and lifeless. Yet there is an opposite danger: overemphasizing “personal encounter” while neglecting truth, which can reduce Christianity to feelings or impressions.
Scripture shows the need for catechesis and safeguarding doctrine. Israel was commanded to teach God’s word diligently to children (Deut 6), and Paul urged Timothy to “hold fast to the pattern of sound words” (2 Tim 1:13). The saints, from Athanasius to Aquinas, defended doctrine as the safeguard of authentic encounter. And as St. Peter teaches, we must be ready to give an account for the hope within us (1 Pet 3:15). Without that grounding, even a powerful encounter can fade — as I saw in my own Protestant background.
The root vice behind both extremes is pride. There is the pride of the intellectualist, who tries to master God with categories and forgets the mystery. And there is the pride of the experientialist: the temptation to think that my feelings, my relationships, my sense of encounter exhaust the meaning of faith. This is the pride of self-reference. The experientialist can be dismissive of doctrine as “cold” because it does not match their preferred way of knowing.
Both place self above the fullness of faith handed down by the Church. The corrective is humility joined to faith, and prudence formed in charity: humility that accepts both God’s transcendence and the Church’s teaching, prudence that discerns what emphasis souls need, and charity that ensures truth is offered as a gift, never a weapon.
The Jesus we encounter is the same Jesus the Church confesses — consubstantial with the Father and truly present in the Eucharist. Doctrine and encounter are two ways of relating to the same Person. The Church’s perennial task is to hold them together: safeguarding truth while presenting it as a living proclamation of Christ. It is always both/and, never either/or.
Spoken like a true Seminarian, James. You clearly did not read the article. Take the time to read it. You did not address my point, because you missed it. Nobody is suggesting that we focus on personal encounter with Christ without “truth”. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It is not possible to focus on Christ, knowing Christ, the good news of the kingdom, without focusing on truth. Your reply is appreciated, but it is a straw man. You’re too quick to advise.
Thomas James you’re doing the full circle thing, first you sterilize doctrine, second, by which to then “establish” your point which usually works for anybody whether or not Christian, third, whereupon you introduce authentic reference materials and insist you’re not excluding doctrine, so that, fourth, you can swing back round and profess that “nobody was suggesting” any sort of “focus” on “personal encounter with Christ” ….. “without truth”.
Dodgy.
ThomasJames why do you suppose digging out quotations could make your sterilizing way good?