Perhaps Jason and the Callers should devote more time to their new fellow believers:
Archbishop Müller’s concise and clear re-statement of the theological foundations of Christian marriage offers a vision of permanent, fruitful and faithful love between a husband and wife, who are a sign for all of human history of the creative fire of Trinitarian love. It also offers a vision of Christ’s unstinting care for his Church — and thus a preparation for eternal life with God.
“Sacramental marriage is a testimony to the power of grace, which changes man and prepares the whole Church for the holy city, the new Jerusalem — the Church, which is prepared, ‘as a bride adorned for her husband,’” observed Archbishop Müller, gently but firmly. “By adapting to the spirit of the age, a weary prophet seeks his own salvation, but not the salvation of the world in Jesus Christ.”
However, his elucidation of Church teaching was accompanied by a frank acknowledgement that many cradle Catholics who participate in a Church wedding know little of sacramental theology and have been formed instead by modern notions of marital love as a human contract that necessarily requires an escape hatch.
The CDF prefect suggested that this state of affairs increases the likelihood that marriages blessed by the Church may not be valid, and that reality might influence judgments made by Church marriage tribunals.
Could the reason for this ignorance be a catechism that is too long? Or could it be that sacramentalism gets in the way of didacticism? Either way, Jason and the Callers have their work cut out for them.
Old Life 
Although nominalism is a possibility for any communion, it seems that ex opere operato sacramentalism makes it inevitable, or at least speeds it up. If baptism saves and last rites get you out of purgatory, is there any real reason to go to mass or even learn your church’s doctrine? It seems that most lay RCs in this country don’t think so.
LikeLike
I don’t think you can marry a logocentric approach to a sacrament and rite religious expression and then ding your own communion for nominalism while trading upon your size and breadth of diversity all at the same time. How big is the RC communion if you’re measuring it by catechetical understanding and adherence, at any point between Trent and now?
Why is ‘liberalism’ as caricatured by the conservative RC, liberal in relation to the Vat II documents and interpretation? JPII nor Benedict has qualified every statement or position put forth at Vat II, not even close, and when the documents themselves were purposeful in desiring a broad interpretation that could accommodate the questions and development of modernity and is WHY the council was even undertaken, outside of ex-cathedra declarations disallowing certain pastoral applications, which don’t exist, where’s the liberalism? Why is Francis’ pastoral application inferior to Benedict’s? Doesn’t Francis’ now possess extraordinary charism by the laying on of hands? What’s a hermenuetic of continuity/reform but not rupture look like as regards a document purposefully amorphous and structured so as to accommodate a ‘spirit of the age’ and CHANGING the church’s posture toward the world? At best, as NEW interpretation comes forth you can declare what’s in bounds and out of bounds, but the whole point of the council was to ALLOW for broader interpretive application so as to MEET the DEMANDS and REALITY of modernity and move on from a medieval institution and posture. How do you remain medieval in your understanding and practice and NOT violate the intent of the council? I understand if you think the intent and product of the council was a mistake but JPII, Benedict and Francis have all declared that Vat II is here to stay.
LikeLike
Sean, did Vatican II institute new/modern clerical attire? Why do the cardinals and pope still look so medieval?
LikeLike
Darryl, actually that was Francis’ first Vat II papal interpretation. He told Benedict to keep his ruby red shoes and papal garb. Benedict being Ratzinger said; “don’t mind if I do and I’ll keep the nice suite in the abbey while you do your ‘of the people thing’ btw(actually he gutteralled ‘auch’), see if you can let my errand boy of duty early today to file my papers, I’ll be busy praying to Mary.”
LikeLike
Anyone else think it strange that the same people who profess TULIP could ever critique another Christian expression for not producing enough genuine discipleship? As if its all up to us how many come to Christ! Y’all are sounding pretty darn Arminian over here. What flavor of protestant does this blog represent again? This is a reformed blog right?
LikeLike
Kenneth wrote: “Anyone else think it strange that the same people who profess TULIP could ever critique another Christian expression for not producing enough genuine discipleship? As if its all up to us how many come to Christ! Y’all are sounding pretty darn Arminian over here. What flavor of protestant does this blog represent again? This is a reformed blog right?”
GW: We “TULIP people” (i.e., Calvinists, Reformed) see no inconsistency here because neither Scripture nor our Reformed confessions posit any inconsistency between absolute monergistic Divine sovereignty in salvation and genuine human responsibility. The Reformed doctrine of Divine providence includes concurrence (which would include God sovereignly using the earnest evangelistic and discipling labors of His church), and we confess that our sovereign God is pleased to employ the diligent use of the means of grace (especially the Word, but also sacraments and prayer) to bring His elect to saving faith and to preserve them in that faith unto the end. It is either ignorance of historic, confessional Reformed theology or confusion about that theology that would lead anyone to see a concern for genuine discipleship as being inconsistent with Calvinism or as leaning in the direction of Arminianism.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart wrote: “Could the reason for this ignorance be a catechism that is too long? Or could it be that sacramentalism gets in the way of didacticism?”
GW: Could it be that a cumbersome, overly-lengthy catechism and hyper-sacramentalist / sacerdotalist practice both contribute to this ignorance (and to the nominalism that arises from this ignorance)?
LikeLike
I love it when unmarried, never-married guys chime in on marriage. Reminds me of liberal politicians talking about hard work.
LikeLike