Are you a Liberal?

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I disagree. I think we do need inquisitors and the current Bishops need to be the first ones examined. Then, when 99% of them are removed from their position for being heretics, we can install some good ones and let the restoration move ahead.
.

P&C - A statement like this does not call for a response, but for prayers for the one who made it. Know you are sincerely in my prayers. Please keep me in yours
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Robster7]

Folks,

If you get down to it, God is a liberal. Didn’t He give us free will?

At least we can sincerely choose to be religious or not. If forced to join a religion, some folks will do so just to avoid a fuss. This will produce an impressive result from the outside, “a whited supulchre,” that on the inside is full of pretense and hypocrisy.

Anyway, we can see the successful results of a particularly fanatical strain of faith in Spain (where the Inquisition apparently only closed in about 1816) had in keeping the country Catholic.

One must consider the kind of “liberalism” that arose in Europe in the 19th century; it was often anticlerical. One can understand why Pius IX was particularly down on democracy, given the form it took in Europe at theat time. It was nothing like that in America, which is why his Syllabus of Errors looks a bit harsh.

Anyway, Now Christianity is more or less dead in Europe, whereas in America it is thriving; a situation which puzzles and horrifies Europeans.

 

[KingAlfred]

I want to see the trads and the charismatics square off against each other here. Talk about fireworks.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I want to see the trads and the charismatics square off against each other here. Talk about fireworks.

I for one am sick of “squaring off” with people who denigrate the mass, The Holy Father, the Magisterium, etc. and I know that others are as well. The only response I will give to people who do this is prayer. When they can dialogue respectfully, dialogue will continue, but not until., as doing so at this point merely gives them a platform.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[EasterJoy]

I for one am sick of “squaring off” with people who denigrate the mass, The Holy Father, the Magisterium, etc. and I know that others are as well. The only response I will give to people who do this is prayer. When they can dialogue respectfully, dialogue will continue, but not until., as doing so at this point merely gives them a platform.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I’m kind of sick of “squaring off” in general. I’d like to think we all start with the same goal: to elucidate the truth, so as to know, love and serve God better, and to know each other better, so as to know, love, and render God’s loving service to each other better.

 

[tr1954]

I’m kind of sick of “squaring off” in general. I’d like to think we all start with the same goal: to elucidate the truth, so as to know, love and serve God better, and to know each other better, so as to know, love, and render God’s loving service to each other better.

This is all true and I’m all for it. However, the topic is liberalism, and it is a very pertinent topic today…even more than before. There is no doubt that liberalism is destroying all the spiritual life outside the Church, and managed to infiltrate even inside the Church. This is not a new occurrence, our “saint” Pope, Pius X warned the faithful long time ago about this danger…and today this danger is very real. Let me offer one of the encyclicals of Pope Pius X…the “PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS” which deals with the very same subject.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

 

[Unitas]

So true. I couldn’t even read the whole thing. Actually I could read more than the first couple of sentences.

Some of these self-proclaimed “traditionalists” had better come to the realization one day that “liberals” are not the only thing damaging the Church – not by a long shot. And that not all liberalism is negative from a Catholic viewpoint.

While I appreciate the more extreme views on these forums represent far less than 1% of the Catholic populous in the USA, they do nothing but underscore a very important truth: extreme liberalism equates to extreme conservatism and vice versa.

Judging by your prolific presence on the Traditional Catholicism forum more than any other, it seems you view ‘extreme conservatism’ as the greater evil.

You say you have a problem with both, but from your posts it seems you only have a problem with one.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

That you are rightly against the sin of liberalism does not mean that the rest of your arguments hold water.

I just don’t see the practical value of your point. If Spain forbids the practice of Islam, are you going to go to the United Nations and argue that Spain may forbid Islam, but Saudi Arabia may not forbid Catholicism? How are you going to find a leg to stand on with this? You are preaching to the choir if you’re telling me that Spain is forbidding a false religion, while Saudi Arabis is forbidding the true one. I think you are mixing fantasy and reality.

OK, I assume you are a female, right? Nothing wrong with being a female, of course, but the mind of a man and a women think differently. Men think more objective, while women thing more emotionally and, in a sense, practically (that may not be the correct word).

Men and women are like the cross. Men are the vertical stem and women are the horizontal. Both are necessary but the vertical stem is firmly rooted in the ground and upholds the horizontal. Without the vertical stem, the horizontal would fall to the ground. That is why the man is to be the head of the women.

In our discussion, the vertical (objective), and horizontal (practical) are showing themselves. I am arguing right from wrong, truth from error, and you are arguing against me, in part, because what I am saying does not seem practical due to the circumstances that we find ourselves in. I am going to use another example (one that we hopefully agree with objectively), and then show you how you are arguing.

Let’s use the example of divorce and re-marriage. Now, let’s say that we are arguing with someone who claims that divorce and remarriage should be permitted. You and I argue in favor of the indissolubility of marriage objectively by quoting magisterial document after magisterial document. We also argue using logic and reason. The other person argues from a practical level by attempting to show that enforcing the indissoluble bond of matrimony would never work. Here’s the “imaginary person’s” argument:

IMAGINARY PERSON: Are you saying that a women who was married to someone for 1 years when they were 19 years old, and who has now been married to another man for the past 15 years with 8 children should be forced to leave her current husband and go back to the man she doesn’t even know anymore? How would that help her children. Do you really think that would be the best thing? It would never work! Your “indissolubility of marriage” argument holds no water.

Notice how the imaginary person argued. They argued from a practical level. Rather than thinking of the doctrine (indissolubility of marriage) objectively, they approached it from the viewpoint of the “horizontal stem”. They ended by denying a truth because it seemed to them to be impractical.

That is exactly what you are doing with me. I am arguing truth and error, and you are rejecting it because it does not seem practical to you. How to best bring our society in line with the truth is the topic for another thread. First, we must establish what the truth is, then we can discuss how best and most prudently to bring it about.

EasterJoy:

The State can legislate moral behavior and has a duty to do so, but no one can legislate faith. Faith is a gift. How can it be moral to punish someone for having failed to receive a gift? Only God, for God alone can judge the circumstances under which it was not received.

It wouldn’t punish someone for failing to receive a gift. If I responded to that point in more detail, it would take way too long and get us off topic.

EasterJoy:

If you legislate that people who do not believe in the True Presence must attend Mass anyway, you are essentially legislating sacriledge! That is the reasonable outcome of a law like that.

Only Catholics are required to attend Mass; and Catholic States do not force non-Catholics to become Catholic.

EasterJoy:

So no, I can’t see legislating the practice of faith, even in a Catholic country. It causes more sin than it prevents.

Sin is the violation of God’s law. Having human laws reflect Divine laws does not cause more sin. On the contrary, a society like ours, who allows everyone to do what they want (as long it is not politically incorrect, or does not harm the new god of the environment) does result in more sin.

EasterJoy:

Where did you get the idea that the Pope’s role is defense of the faith, and not the conversion of souls? This is a new one on me…and, may I say, Heaven forbid!

I didn’t saying that Pope should not try to convert people. John Paul II had friends who were Jews. When he died that stated that John Paul II never tried to convert them. On the contrary, he encouraged them in the practice if the old Covenant – a covenant which is null and void and will not save anyone. I disagree with that and think the Pope should try to convert people. But the Pope is not a missionary. His duty is to govern the Church and protect the faith. Here’s just one quote:

Pope Pius X, Pascendi: “1.** One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called.** There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things,”[1] “vain talkers and seducers,”[2] “erring and driving into error.”[3] It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office.”

EasterJoy:

Having addressed that point, let us remember that we do have an “inquisitor”, only now the office is the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. As you are aware, that is the office formerly held by our Holy Father. They can declare bishops to be in heresy, and have them excommunicated or declare them to be in schism. Are you suggesting that we should figure out a way to have an Inquisition against our inquistors, then?

Not having an inquisitor against the inquisitor, but having the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith take its job seriously and examine our current Bishops for heresy, and remove them when necesary. There are Bishops today who openly deny dogmas of the faith and do untold harm to the average Catholic who hears it. These men should be removed and punished severely now, in the hope that they will renounce their error and not have to go to hell for all eternity.

EasterJoy:

Are you advocating going back to the days of burning people at the stake for heresy?

No, but I realize that the Catholic State had every right to do it. Burning a heretic at the stake will certainly shock modern sensibilities, but I bet aborting 4000 babies a day, or allowing openly heretical Bishops to publicly teach errors, would have shocked the sensibilities of the Catholics who lived back then. Whose sensibilities are more in line with God’s? Keep in mind that God will burn the sinner, not for 2 or 3 minutes, but for all eternity.

EasterJoy:

To burn heretics at the stake is a grave offense against the hope of conversion.

So yes: burning heretics at the stake was entirely a scandal upon the Church. That was wrong, and I do not fear to say so explicitly.

You say that because it shocks your modern sensibilities. I don’t know of any Catholics who lived during the “good old days” when the State burned heretics who had any problem it. Again, whose sensibilities are correct? Yours or theirs? And how do you know. We are formed in part by the culture we live it. I would advise you not to condemn 1000 + years of Catholicism because it seems strange to you - who have been formed by a very permissive culture that prides itself in tolerating sin. Since your sensibilities are contrary to those of the Church and Catholics for 1000+ years, it would be best for you to say that you don’t understand why they did such a thing – or that it seems strange to you - rather than saying they were wrong and it was a scandal.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"Pax et Caritas:

I disagree. I think we do need inquisitors and the current Bishops need to be the first ones examined. Then, when 99% of them are removed from their position for being heretics, we can install some good ones and let the restoration move ahead.

P&C - A statement like this does not call for a response, but for prayers for the one who made it. Know you are sincerely in my prayers. Please keep me in yours

If you disagree with the percentage I used, that is fair enough, since, in reality, I don’t know the exact percent. But if you are disagreeing with the fundamental point that, given the amount of heresy in the hierarchy, the Bishops should be examined and, if found to be in heresy, removed, that is another matter. If you disagree with that, I will pray for you.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

If you disagree with the percentage I used, that is fair enough, since, in reality, I don’t know the exact percent. But if you are disagreeing with the fundamental point that, given the amount of heresy in the hierarchy, the Bishops should be examined and, if found to be in heresy, removed, that is another matter. If you disagree with that, I will pray for you.

Thank you for your prayers. You continue in mine. I will faithfully follow the Magisterium.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[redrosetea]

I am a Christan the only label I wear is Gods

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I am a Christan the only label I wear is Gods

I like the way Pope Benedict described it. ** “Christian is your first name. Catholic is your sir name.”** That says it all.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Thank you for your prayers. You continue in mine. I will faithfully follow the Magisterium.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I’m curious if you follow this voice of the magisterium, and if not, why?

**Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: ** “The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope [John Paul II] adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we **no longer **understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end… Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each Church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’ or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism.” (Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9 - Emphasis mine)

Do you follow that voice? Do you agree that the Church should not attempt to convert heretics? If not, on what authority do you reject it? After all, Kasper was rose from the level of Priest to Cardinal under John Paul II who appointed him as the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity - a very high position - which he has kept under our new Pope.

If you accept what Cardinal Kasper said above, you have departed from 2000 years of Catholicism. If you reject it, you are failing to follow the magisterium.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I really enjoyed that read. It was strengthening. People back then could often see so much more clearly than people can today . My feeling is that that’s because, as you said, yesterday’s liberalism has become today’s conservatism. God save us.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I’m curious if you follow this voice of the magisterium, and if not, why?

**Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: ** “The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope [John Paul II] adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we **no longer **understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end… Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each Church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’ or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism.” (Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9 - Emphasis mine)

Do you follow that voice? Do you agree that the Church should not attempt to convert heretics? If not, on what authority do you reject it? After all, Kasper was rose from the level of Priest to Cardinal under John Paul II who appointed him as the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity - a very high position - which he has kept under our new Pope.

If you accept what Cardinal Kasper said above, you have departed from 2000 years of Catholicism. If you reject it, you are failing to follow the magisterium.

You make a simple mistake here. This cardinal is not the Magisterium. He is a part of it. His single opinion, is not official Church teaching, no matter what he says. The teaching must be in union with the Pope and the rest of the Magisterium.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ethelzguy]

Posts like this…

If you disagree with the percentage I used, that is fair enough, since, in reality, I don’t know the exact percent. But if you are disagreeing with the fundamental point that, given the amount of heresy in the hierarchy, the Bishops should be examined and, if found to be in heresy, removed, that is another matter. If you disagree with that, I will pray for you.

and this…

*OK, I assume you are a female, right? Nothing wrong with being a female, of course, but the mind of a man and a women think differently. Men think more objective, while women thing more emotionally and, in a sense, practically (that may not be the correct word).

Men and women are like the cross. Men are the vertical stem and women are the horizontal. Both are necessary but the vertical stem is firmly rooted in the ground and upholds the horizontal. Without the vertical stem, the horizontal would fall to the ground. That is why the man is to be the head of the women.*

make me wonder if such a person is that ignorant or that arrogant.

But neither comment could be construed as Catholic in any way.

 

[EasterJoy]

OK, I assume you are a female, right? Nothing wrong with being a female, of course, but the mind of a man and a women think differently. Men think more objective, while women thing more emotionally and, in a sense, practically (that may not be the correct word).

Men and women are like the cross. Men are the vertical stem and women are the horizontal. Both are necessary but the vertical stem is firmly rooted in the ground and upholds the horizontal. Without the vertical stem, the horizontal would fall to the ground. That is why the man is to be the head of the women.

In our discussion, the vertical (objective), and horizontal (practical) are showing themselves. I am arguing right from wrong, truth from error, and you are arguing against me, in part, because what I am saying does not seem practical due to the circumstances that we find ourselves in. I am going to use another example (one that we hopefully agree with objectively), and then show you how you are arguing.

Let’s use the example of divorce and re-marriage. Now, let’s say that we are arguing with someone who claims that divorce and remarriage should be permitted. You and I argue in favor of the indissolubility of marriage objectively by quoting magisterial document after magisterial document. We also argue using logic and reason. The other person argues from a practical level by attempting to show that enforcing the indissoluble bond of matrimony would never work. Here’s the “imaginary person’s” argument:

IMAGINARY PERSON: Are you saying that a women who was married to someone for 1 years when they were 19 years old, and who has now been married to another man for the past 15 years with 8 children should be forced to leave her current husband and go back to the man she doesn’t even know anymore? How would that help her children. Do you really think that would be the best thing? It would never work! Your “indissolubility of marriage” argument holds no water.

Notice how the imaginary person argued. They argued from a practical level. Rather than thinking of the doctrine (indissolubility of marriage) objectively, they approached it from the viewpoint of the “horizontal stem”. They ended by denying a truth because it seemed to them to be impractical.

That is exactly what you are doing with me. I am arguing truth and error, and you are rejecting it because it does not seem practical to you. How to best bring our society in line with the truth is the topic for another thread. First, we must establish what the truth is, then we can discuss how best and most prudently to bring it about.

I’m not arguing that heresy is OK! I’m arguing that the death penalty is not open to us as a remedy against it. You, in the meantime, in arguing that heretics might rightly be executed by the state are arguing more along the lines that adultery is a mortal sin, and so adulterers may rightly be stoned. This is wrong.

As for my gender, you know there are priests who would argue as I do, and they’re all men. The entire Magesterium of the Church you are arguing against is made up of men. There was not a single woman who voted for Vatican II! So I don’t know where on earth you got that. Whether it is burning heretics at the stake or vistiting synagogues, the leadership of the Church has been from men, and that is for 2000 years, not just 1000. So let’s just skip that little wild goose chase, shall we? Nothing could be more irrelevant.

It wouldn’t punish someone for failing to receive a gift. If I responded to that point in more detail, it would take way too long and get us off topic…

Only Catholics are required to attend Mass; and Catholic States do not force non-Catholics to become Catholic.

Well, except that if you’re openly non-Catholic, that makes you a heretic, and you’re going to be burned at the stake…and yes, Catholic states have forced non-Catholics to become Catholic, upon pain of death. Tell me: was that not wrong?

Sin is the violation of God’s law. Having human laws reflect Divine laws does not cause more sin. On the contrary, a society like ours, who allows everyone to do what they want (as long it is not politically incorrect, or does not harm the new god of the environment) does result in more sin.

I didn’t saying that Pope should not try to convert people. John Paul II had friends who were Jews. When he died that stated that John Paul II never tried to convert them. On the contrary, he encouraged them in the practice if the old Covenant – a covenant which is null and void and will not save anyone. I disagree with that and think the Pope should try to convert people. But the Pope is not a missionary. His duty is to govern the Church and protect the faith. Here’s just one quote:

Not having an inquisitor against the inquisitor, but having the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith take its job seriously and examine our current Bishops for heresy, and remove them when necesary. There are Bishops today who openly deny dogmas of the faith and do untold harm to the average Catholic who hears it. These men should be removed and punished severely now, in the hope that they will renounce their error and not have to go to hell for all eternity…

Well, why not have an inquistion against the inquistor? How are they different than the bishops you want them to punish? Why not save some souls and burn 'em all? You’re not being consistent in your thinking.

No, but I realize that the Catholic State had every right to do it. Burning a heretic at the stake will certainly shock modern sensibilities, but I bet aborting 4000 babies a day, or allowing openly heretical Bishops to publicly teach errors, would have shocked the sensibilities of the Catholics who lived back then. Whose sensibilities are more in line with God’s? Keep in mind that God will burn the sinner, not for 2 or 3 minutes, but for all eternity.

EasterJoy: To burn heretics at the stake is a grave offense against the hope of conversion…

I strongly disagree. The death penalty gives the person a good chance to think about what they have done and repent, since they know exactly when they will die. Many conversions have come about just before the penalty is executed. But even if it didn’t, cutting off a heretic from society not only justly punishes a crime, but removes the person from society and prevents him from leading others into error.

You say that because it shocks your modern sensibilities. I don’t know of any Catholics who lived during the “good old days” when the State burned heretics who had any problem it. Again, whose sensibilities are correct? Yours or theirs? And how do you know. We are formed in part by the culture we live it. I would advise you not to condemn 1000 + years of Catholicism because it seems strange to you - who have been formed by a very permissive culture that prides itself in tolerating sin. Since your sensibilities are contrary to those of the Church and Catholics for 1000+ years, it would be best for you to say that you don’t understand why they did such a thing – or that it seems strange to you - rather than saying they were wrong and it was a scandal.

There is no use in substituting the cultural sensitivies of the past for the cultural sensititivies of the present, when it is the sensitivies of the Gospel that are called for. The Church has been beset with cultural “thorns” growing up and attempting to choke off our life in Christ for 2000 years. I urge you not to romanticize the past and think that the Church was perfect back when 17 year olds were being made bishops because of the family they belonged to. Is liberalism an error? Yes. But it is not the first error we’ve seen creep into our thinking. Conversion by force was one of them. You do not mend one error simply by replacing it with an error of greater antiquity.

Did Jesus preach the death penalty for mortal sin? He did not. He said, “Let the one of you without sin cast the first stone.” Whose faith is so perfect that they are going to light the bier under the heretic? You?

Who did worse than those who crucified the Son of God? Yet Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” St. Stephen imitated him. St. Paul taught that we should imitate him as well, praying for them and overcoming evil with good.

You will have a tough time finding the death penalty in the Church’s first few centuries, before Christian rulers got the idea that they should learn how to rule from the Caesars instead of from the Lord. Again: the error of liberalism isn’t the first we’ve been confronted with. Let us return always to the truth that has been handed down to us, and not the old falsehoods that have competed with it, no matter how long they endured to plague us.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

EasterJoy:

I’m not arguing that heresy is OK! I’m arguing that the death penalty is not open to us as a remedy against it.

That may be your personal belief, but it is contrary to that of the Church. The Church has never said the State is forbidden from punishing heresy with death. Quite the contrary: For well over 1000 years that was the practice of the Catholic States, and it was the Church itself who decided if the person was guilty or innocent.

Anyone who believes that the Bible is inspired will know with certainty that God is in favor of the death penalty for those who violate his laws.

EasterJoy:

You, in the meantime, in arguing that heretics might rightly be executed by the state are arguing more along the lines that adultery is a mortal sin, and so adulterers may rightly be stoned. This is wrong.

Was it wrong when God commanded it?

Deut 22:23-24: “If a man have espoused a damsel that is a virgin, and some one find her in the city, and lie with her, Thou shalt bring them both out to the gate of that city, and they shall be stoned”.

If stoning someone guilty of adultery is wrong in and of itself, why would God have commanded it? Did God command man to do things that were intrinsically wrong? Or could it possibly be that you are wrong? Which do you think is more likely?

As for my gender, you know there are priests who would argue as I do, and they’re all men. The entire Magesterium of the Church you are arguing against is made up of men.

I am arguing against Liberalism. Are you implying that the entire magisterium of the Church today are Liberals? I sure hope you are not right.

EasterJoy:

Well, except that if you’re openly non-Catholic, that makes you a heretic, and you’re going to be burned at the stake…

Wrong. Being openly non-Catholic does not make someone a heretic. The Inquisition investigated Catholics. It did not investigate non-Christians.

and yes, Catholic states have forced non-Catholics to become Catholic, upon pain of death. Tell me: was that not wrong?

You really hate the Catholic Church as it existed up until the New Springtime of Vatican II, don’t you. By the way, when did the Church forcibly convert non-Catholics? Please provide the evidence to support that claim. A good place to search for documentation would be an anti-Catholic website. You may want to look between the article that says Catholics worship Mary, and the one explaining how confession to a Priest is an “invention” of the Fourth Lateran Council.

EasterJoy:

Is liberalism an error? Yes.

Then why are you defending it? Liberalism is the exact contrary to Catholicism. It is probably the most crafty of all the errors the Church has ever faced. Never has an error been cloaked in the appearance of good to the extent that liberalism has in our day. Some Catholics have fallen for it hook line and sinker; some accept its principles while deploring the logical consequences; others perceive the danger, but are unable to see the error with complete clarity. How few are there who can still see the errors of liberalism at its root – its principles.

Liberalism and its false principles did not escape the notice of the vigilant Popes of the 19th and 20th centuries. They saw it for what it was, realized the dangers that it presented, and condemned it over and over again. Today these documents stand as a light shining in the darkness – yet the average Catholic is either completely ignorant of these “lights” or simply rejects what they teach for the contrary.

You claim to realize that Liberalism is an error. That’s good. But what you are completely unaware of is how much of the error you have inadvertently absorbed. You really need to read the anti-Liberal documents of the Popes. But be warned, if you don’t like what I am saying, you are going to HATE what the Popes said.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You make a simple mistake here. This cardinal is not the Magisterium. He is a part of it. His single opinion, is not official Church teaching, no matter what he says. The teaching must be in union with the Pope and the rest of the Magisterium.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

You are making my point, which was: We are living in a time of great confusion. It is no longer enough to say “I will simply follow the magisterium”, because the magisterium is not speaking with one voice.

And what makes you think the teaching of Kasper is any different than that of John Paul II? After all, the Bellamand Agreement said that heretics and schimatics are part of the true Church and that Catholics should not try to convert them. It stated that the unity brought about when the “Uniates” returned to “full communion” with the Catholic Church is the wrong kind of unity. In other words, it said that it is wrong to attempt to convert the heretics and schismatics into the Catholic Church to bring about unity. That fits in perfectly with what Kasper said, and it was accepted by John Paul II.

And if Kasper’s statement was out of line with the thinking of the Pope, why would he have appointed him to that position? Kasper is in charge of Chrsitian unity.

Setting aside for a minute what John Paul II really thought about “Christian unity”, the fact is, the magisterium is not speaking with one voice. Therefore, simply saying you “faithfully follow the magisterium” sound very pious and nice, but what does it mean on a practical level. Kasper is part of the magisterium. If you reject what he taught (which none of the Popes have come our against), on what authority do you reject it? What makes you think it is any different than what the other members of the magisterium think?

That quote has been around for a long time. Have you ever heard one member of the magisterium speak out against what Kasper said?

The answer to the crisis we find ourselves in today is to hold fast to what the Church has always taught, and to refuse to accept what it has condemned. But to do that, a person must study what the Church has always taught. After all, that is basically what you are doing when you reject the quoted I provided from Cardinal Kasper. Even though the Pope has never disagreed with what Cardinal Kasper said, or made him retract it, you are holding fast to what the Church has always taught on that point (which you are fortunate enough to know), which thereby enables you to spot the error - even though the error was never condemned. But what if you didn’t already know what the Church taught on that subject? What would you have done them? Answer: You probably would have accepted it, and argued against anyone (such as myself), who disagreed with Cardinal Kasper. In fact, that is exactly what some Catholics have done when I quoted that quote.

The point is, it is not enough to say you follow the magisterium since it is not at all clear what the magisterium is teaching. Before Vatican II it was clear. If you read books written prior to 1960 you will find perfect harmony it the doctrinal teachings. For the past 48 years that has not been the case. Confusion is everywhere and no honest and informed person would deny it.

Holding fast to what the Church has always taught is the answer, but knowing what the Church has always taught takes effort. It takes a little more effort to keep the faith in our day, that it did in times past. May we have the zeal to do what is necessary to keep the faith, and not blindly follow the blind.

 

[historyb]

** Are you a Liberal?**

No