Cafeteria Catholicism

[Podo2005]

Feanaro:
On morals yes, but on other issues the church can be wrong because as I said before we are only human, we make errors. How can you say the tridentine mass isn’t an error?! I mean look at the abuses in the mass!(Which I will not discuss because this isn’t the right tread) And The Eucharist isn’t more important than the Word. They both give you spiritual fruits. I mean if the word wasn’t as important we might as well skipt it in mass and get on with the eucharist. We are called to live out God’s word everyday so It must be important! And we are also called to recieve Jesus and be in communion with God and the Church! One must live with both, not one or the other alone. Put it this way, If you don’t think the word is that important then how can you recieve Jesus and say you are a christian without first letting the word sink in. So you need to have both at mass, I never said that you are supposed to have only the word.
Podo

 

[TOME]

Penny, I agree with your insight. If you study the Gospels you may come to agree with most scripture scholars who hold that during His Ministry on Earth, Jesus’ message was that of the Kingdom of God (Heaven).

I always thought the definition of the Kingdom of God I heard Fr McBrien give was the best, it’s where God’s Will is operative or using Jesus’ word where God’s Will is being done (here and now)

There are many passages where Jesus speaks of the Kingdom as something other or what we usually think of - a place where hopefully we’ll go when we die. However, if you study the Gospels Jesus speaks more often of the Kingdom (God’s loving active presence) being present here and now and Jesus demands that His followers respond to God’s Kingdom immediately and actively with our whole being (consider all the parables of Jesus about the Kingdom as found in Matthew).

So, I think you have hit the nail right on its head - Thanks!

Oh yes, to build on your last thought, it’s like stepping over a homeless person and being irratated because he’s slowing you down and you don’t want to be late for Mass.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Penny Plain:

Alan, I would love to get your thoughts on this, which has been bouncing around in my head for some time.

OK, I’m ready… :bounce:

I think we place too much emphasis on heaven. I mean, yes, we all want to go there, but we (and I include myself in this) spend so much time thinking about it and calculating how we’re going to get there that we don’t pay attention to what we are supposed to be doing, which is living.

Yes. One thing I noticed about the way we raise children in this country, is we try to teach them a hybrid system of ethics. On the one hand, we tell them to do what’s right just because it’s a Good Thing. At the same time, we threaten them if they go beyond certain limits. At any given time, the authorities don’t know if they’re obeying because they are good kids, or because their threats/rewards are working.

Plus, everything they do in life is to prepare. grade 1 leads to grade 2, then 3, then so on, and if they ever get out of school they go to work and have a goal. then if they meet it they get a higher goal.

Adults supposedly don’t know how to “live in the moment” and as Christ said, “do not worry about tomorrow” when they have been trained their whole lives to live on promises and threats to be administered in the future.

I think the heaven/hell thing is one of them. When I ask my kid to bring me something, I expect him to do it because he wants to, not because I’m going to hit him if he doesn’t or reward him.

It seems to me that what we should be striving to do is live rightly. If we do (note the ambiguity as to whether “do” means “live well” or “striving to live well”), then heaven will take care of itself.

It seems to me that’s pretty much the point of the Good News that God revealed to the little ones but hid from the wise and learned. The first apostles evangelized people in much too short of time for it to have involved a great deal of theology. I think the important thing is how we treat each other, because that is really our only way of showing God how we would treat Him.

It’s like we’re hiking through the mountains and not noticing the beautiful scenery because we’re too fixated on the hot chocolate we hope is waiting for us at the lodge.

Exactly. When we get there, we enjoy it. Until then, we enjoy what we’re doing, and help others to do so now, not because we will be rewarded, but because living a life of love is a reward in itself, continuously satisfying – heaven is just like icing on the cake.

I think the whole thing about the fear of hell and the bliss of heaven is overrated, in terms of behavior modification. More and more people aren’t buying it, as society, parents, teachers, bosses, and their dogs all are trying to pull us this way and that, all on the basis of reward and punishment. It’s easy to get cynical, too, when a kid notices for the first time that reward systems aren’t about doing what’s right, but about not getting caught. People want to be happy now, and have peace and be without anxiety. You can call that immediate gratification, or you can call it the Good News that Christ came to proclaim. Quit worrying about stuff, and be nice to people. If you can do that, the rest will come along.

Also I like TOME’s answer to your post.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

TOME:

Oh yes, to build on your last thought, it’s like stepping over a homeless person and being irratated because he’s slowing you down and you don’t want to be late for Mass.

This is a wonderful example.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

TOME:

I always thought the definition of the Kingdom of God I heard Fr McBrien give was the best, it’s where God’s Will is operative or using Jesus’ word where God’s Will is being done (here and now)

Fr. Richard McBrien ?

You mean, the one whose book “Catholicism” has been denounced repeatedly by the USCCB for heretical teachings? His book was used when I took a theology class in the early 1990’s (2nd edition I believe). The US Bishops gave him a list of things to fix in the first edition, then again in the 2nd edition, and look what was still left to be fixed in the third edition.

Hey, and this list is only a few “samples” of inaccuracies in his work. I wouldn’t touch his stuff with a 10 foot pole and can’t understand how he still holds a teaching position within the Catholic Church after such blatant disobedience. He and Hans Kung make a good pair.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9709fea2.asp

cin.org/users/james/files/mcbrien.htm

ad2000.com.au/articles/1996/jun1996p3_796.html

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Lux_et_veritas:

Fr. Richard McBrien ?

You mean, the one whose book “Catholicism” has been denounced repeatedly by the USCCB for heretical teachings? His book was used when I took a theology class in the early 1990’s (2nd edition I believe). The US Bishops gave him a list of things to fix in the first edition, then again in the 2nd edition, and look what was still left to be fixed in the third edition.

Hey, and this list is only a few “samples” of inaccuracies in his work. I wouldn’t touch his stuff with a 10 foot pole and can’t understand how he still holds a teaching position within the Catholic Church after such blatant disobedience. He and Hans Kung make a good pair.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9709fea2.asp

cin.org/users/james/files/mcbrien.htm

ad2000.com.au/articles/1996/jun1996p3_796.html

This is something I find a bit troubling about apologetics in general.

TOME expresses an opinion, but made the mistake of saying who may have influenced his opinion. You have not addressed the opinion itself, except to attempt to debunk the source. I read parts and skimmed other parts of the objections you cited, and even searched on the word “kingdom” in all three, and only found its occurrence once in an unrelated context.

Perhaps this priest, and for the life of me if he was so heretical I can’t understand why Catholic institutions used his book as a text, expressed some personal opinions about the kingdom. So have I. This one apparently spoke to TOME.

Perhaps there is a theological error in TOME’s idea, but simply saying that this person who gave him the idea is not considered an “authorized” source of information dodges the issue, rather than answer it. If you don’t accept or want to hear any of that priest’s teachings, then fine.

This is good information, and if I was basing opinions on a source that was deemed heretical, I’d want to know that. I don’t consider those refutations anything to worry about, because I find the outward defenders of the faith are worried primarily about doctrine and as far as spiritual growth, they tend to try to look at even that in intellectual terms. Any experienced contemplative can tell you it can be extremely difficult to explain the types of thoughts, changes, and insights that accompany contemplation, partly because there is no language ready made to describe them. The reason? Maybe it’s because most of them keep their thoughts to themselves so that theologians don’t pounce on their every syllable trying to debunk them, rather than listening to them, dialoging with them, and finding a way to express what they have learned from their experience and maybe even using it to add to their body of knowledge rather than reject anything they say out of hand because they were technically not correct in other areas.
(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)
Homeless people have truths nobody will ever know, and I doubt many theologians ask them for their insight, and then use that insight to help enlighten themselves. Everybody has a personal point of view, but instead of taking advantage of it we require someone to be a mental clone of ourselves before we listen to what they say. That destroys the whole reason for there to be more than one person on this earth, as each of us, as an expression of the love of creation, experiences that creation from a different angle.

Why do you think Christ said all that stuff about hiding Truths from the wise and learned? Wasn’t he talking about theologians? If so, wouldn’t it pay for theologians to pay better attention sometimes to what “normal people” say – even as they demand those people honor their education and accept the truth as “they” describe it?

There is Truth in the birds singing. There is Truth in the birds dropping stuff on my car. There is Truth in a thunderstorm. There is Truth, love, and beauty everywhere and the contemplative sees it but dares not try to describe it without using vague poetic terms to the point they are saying nothing interesting, to avoid the scrutiny of those who seem more interested in proving them wrong than learning what truth they can glean from this person.

Maybe what this guy said about the kingdom has some truth to it. After all, even Shakespeare admitted about a man, “he is not honest by nature, but is so sometimes by chance.”

When you conform your mind and heart to Jesus, that doesn’t mean you know how to get straight A’s on the religion bowl tests (something my kids do regularly but I don’t even hope to do) but that you truly think and feel the way Christ did, in terms of love and forgiveness.

Perhaps for TOME, this priest was the Good Samaritan, his theology soundly dismissed, but said something that spoke love to TOME. It is good to caution him/her that a particular priest may not be considered “orthodox” but it is unhelpful and perhaps counterproductive and discouraging for people to hear that others who have helped them find peace in some way are “bad” and shouldn’t be listened to. What if this priest is the only one who’s given him peace? What if you look at the priest as “ear candy” and TOME as a baby who doesn’t know any better than to hear it? Is it loving to take away candy from a baby (no offense TOME please, I’m trying to make a point) without any means of replaceing it?

Gosh, I’ve learned a lot of things from people who actually knew less, intellectually, than I did about certain things. I’ve actually been able to save tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars (yes, your money) by listening to those who were not as educated as me. As an engineer, I made the unprecedented move (with special permission from my boss and shop manager) to actually talk to the production people who built things, before releasing my design. They had no idea about the electrical characteristics of the signals (I was designing equipment to test the radar and navigation systems from a B-52) but they certianly knew what sort of junk they had to put up with. One guy railed, “well for on G**mn thing, don’t put shields unless you need them,” then rattled off for ten minutes as I took notes. He had no idea which signals needed shielding, but I had shielded every one because that’s how I was shown as an example from previous equipment. Turned out only two out of about 1600 wires in one junction box alone actually needed shielding, and that alone saved a couple hundred labor hours on each of 22 units. If I had followed the “intellectual” tract, and simply done what my bosses asked me to do without looking around a bit and asking opinions from “unorthodox” sources – and while I was at it going against Standard Procedures to do so, you guys would have had to fork over the extra tax money to do that work that was unnecessary, and difficult to maintain.

Yes, I could have gone orthodox, but in this case I’ll allow all you U.S. taxpayers to thank me for using my own methods and my own conscience to gather the information I needed to save you money. The designers on the previous project did not do that, and the buyers (Det 34) loved my equipment, despite their being skeptical and angry over the previous project.

In short, listen to everything as if it may have a ring of truth to it, because more often than not it does.

Alan

 

[ncjohn]

“Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done…on earth as it is in heaven.”

Yes, earthly life is supposed to be a foretaste of heaven, where we are to find the Creator in all of creation. We are to experience Him in each bark of a dog or sting of mosquito. It’s either heaven all the way to heaven or hell all the way to hell. I truly don’t believe that those who don’t find the Creator here will recognize him later or would want to spend eternity with him.

Some of that life here will involve mistakes, but hey, we learn much more from our mistakes than our successes. You’ll learn much more from touching a hot burner and seeing its consequences firsthand than you will in learning that you should always avoid burners. When you speak to someone of burners after that, especially to your children, you’ll be able to explain from experience why they’ll do best to avoid them and show them the scars that can result. Yes we need to protect children from serious harm and help them learn the boundaries, but we also have to allow them to make the little mistakes that will help them extrapolate the potential consequences of other actions. You might be able to shelter them from a particular situation, but you can’t shelter them from life, and those who try usually end up with dysfunctional or non-functional adult children.

I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about making mistakes. I do concentrate on learning from them and praising God for the grace shown in that.

Peace,

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

AlanFromWichita:

This is something I find a bit troubling about apologetics in general.

TOME expresses an opinion, but made the mistake of saying who may have influenced his opinion. You have not addressed the opinion itself, except to attempt to debunk the source…

Perhaps this priest, and for the life of me if he was so heretical I can’t understand why Catholic institutions used his book as a text, expressed some personal opinions about the kingdom…

This is good information, and if I was basing opinions on a source that was deemed heretical, I’d want to know that.

And, it is being made known to you right now. Read what the US Bishops are saying. Look at the specifics!

The book is not suppose to be used in Catholic institutions, the US Bishops Conference has been condemning the book for nearly a decade or more now. There are so many things wrong with the text that unsuspecting people are being taught many things that the church does not teach. Yet, they believe it is “Catholic”. If McBrien resided under different Bishop, he likely would have went the way of Kung and others. McBrien subscribes to much of Kung’s and Curran’s theology and both have been booted.

As to not addressing the original statement, I have not had time to dig into it yet and will put it on my list, of other things to dig up. There is no doubt that we must help people here on earth - Jesus taught us that. However, we cannot get into a “trade-off” of supporting good works at the expense of what is morally correct. Some people are more concerned with the works than they are with morality and that itself is a problem. The two must work hand-in-hand. It is in understanding faith and morals from which good works stem. Morals, however, do not stemp from good works necessarily. Planned parenthood probably feels it is doing good works, but it is not moral. However, if I have a sense of morality, I may find myself working at a crisis pregnancy center, or talking to women on the phone who think their only choice is to butcher the baby out of them.

Stepping over a homeless man - that is wrong for anyone. However, since all of us do not work with the homless of our time on a daily basis, it is also justifiable to support those centers who do. If I send $100 to an inner city Capuchin soup kitchen I am using just one of my resources to help. I can do more by volunteering at the soup kitchen.

How many here on this forum, who are concerned with the homeless man on the street are going to open their doors today and give him a bed, bath and a meal? Mother Theresa did and she was a saint. Are we all called to take each and every homeless person we see on the street into our homes, irrespective of their psychological status, drug addictions, or other things that can be dangerous to a family? Look at the recent abductions that resulted in killings and it involved drifters or homeless people. This does not mean they are all bad. Sure, they are in need of help and there are professionals that do this in safe ways - if we cough up the money. Is it not sacrifice to forgo something in order to send in that $100? Or to give up a Saturday afternnoon to work in a soup kitchen or pregnancy center?

People do good works and these actions are often graces from God that come from frequent reception of the Sacraments, humble assent to Church teaching, and a pure love of God and His Word.

More on McBrien

IMHO, McBrien is one of the last people we should be using to help form our conscience. I will always point out the many heresies of McBrien for those who innocently got caught up in being taught from his infamous, condemned book. Why should I read anything this man has to say as opposed to reading a loyal and faithful theologian such as, Fr. John A. Hardon, whose works have never in the least been questioned as true?

More articles on heretical teachings in “Catholicism”

credo.stormloader.com/Doctrine/mcbrien1.htm

theviewfromthecore.com/20020325/column.html

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/06-96/7/7.html

 

[Brad]

Penny Plain:

Who else, really?

Ok then. I need a direct line to Penny. And I will use my catechism and encyclicals to get the fire started this winter. But you are going to be extremely busy.
Penny Plain:

As for the other questions:

1. Read it.

Good.
Penny Plain:

1. (already discussed)

Yes. I have to be in communion with Penny Plain to be in communion with everyone else. I think I’ve got that right now.
Penny Plain:

1. How is the Church “persecuted” in the US?

Oh. I don’t know. Seems Catholic bashing is “in” in the media and schools but perhaps you have different channels and schools.
Penny Plain:

1. Nope.

I see. You agree and practice all of them, just disagree with them telling you what to do or not.
Penny Plain:

1. Not necessarily; don’t know; don’t know.

I suggest reading the Gospel of Luke. Or perhaps you have a different interpretation. Remember, I really will need that direct line because you sure have different sources that me.
Penny Plain:

1. Not sure; don’t buy the concept that God primarily expects “obedience” from us.

Is Jesus not a model of behavior? Was He not obedient unto death even though he asked for it to pass in the Garden?
Penny Plain:

1. More.

Awesome.
Penny Plain:

1. Don’t think God minds confusion and ambiguity; even Jesus spent time in the desert.

Was Jesus confused in the desert or just weak and tired? He seemed fairly unambiguous in talking to the devil (at least in my version).
Penny Plain:

1. Nope.

Excellent. Me neither.
Penny Plain:

1. Uh… Don’t agree that heaven’s the goal of life, it’s just the result of life, maybe. Have no idea what God’s criteria for entry are, doubt anyone else does, and therefore don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it.

This is frightening Penny. Heaven is the automatic result? Yikes. Well, the “Hell” with Mass and being good to people then. What’s the sense? You really do have a different Bible than I do. It’s not just translation. Please reconsider this question in prayer.
Penny Plain:

Do I pass, oh Grand Inquisitor Brad? I’ll wait while you fetch … the Comfy Chair!!!

I said you didn’t have to answer publically. It was meant for private consideration moreso than public discussion. But you obliged.
Penny Plain:

I don’t know why I keep getting myself sucked into these threads. I think I am too easily provoked by the implicit assumption that we Cafeteria Catholics are poorly educated, immoral, weak of will, deceived by the enemy, foolish, or part of an evil plot to undermine the Church from within.

Perhaps that is a good “sucked into”. Perhaps God is calling you to question whether Penny is the direct line or not. Please let me know if you have this sorted out soon. My life depends on it. And yours.
Penny Plain:

I have no idea what to expect when I meet my God face to face. Neither do you, Brad. I know what he said were the first and second commandments and (assuming He feels the need to ask questions at all because, sheesh, what’s He really gonna learn that he doesn’t know already?) I expect I’ll hear a bunch of questions that relate to how I’ve done at those things.

Implicit in those commandments were the other 10. Remember that part about Jesus not coming to abolish the law but to fufill it?

I know exactly what to expect now. How will did I live up to Penny standards?
Penny Plain:

I expect I’ll hear questions about what I’ve done with the gifts he gave me, the principle one being the amazing gift of life. I think He came here to show us how to live, and I think He expects each of us to develop and use the understanding He gave us to discern the right way to live.

On a roll here - GOOD stuff.
Penny Plain:

Who’s to discern that for me but me? And who for you but you, Brad? You’ve discerned that the correct thing to do is to delegate that task to a Church that’s all too willing to take it up on your behalf. Your business, not mine, but as a child I never got very far with “But he SAID…” when I was trying to excuse conduct I knew to be wrong.

Your mileage may vary.

I’m not delegating. I’m trying to obey. It isn’t easy you know. But eternity is such a long time and eternal joy would be a very cool thing.

 

[buffalo]

Lux_et_veritas:

And, it is being made known to you right now. Read what the US Bishops are saying. Look at the specifics!

The book is not suppose to be used in Catholic institutions, the US Bishops Conference has been condemning the book for nearly a decade or more now. There are so many things wrong with the text that unsuspecting people are being taught many things that the church does not teach. Yet, they believe it is “Catholic”. If McBrien resided under different Bishop, he likely would have went the way of Kung and others. McBrien subscribes to much of Kung’s and Curran’s theology and both have been booted.

As to not addressing the original statement, I have not had time to dig into it yet and will put it on my list, of other things to dig up. There is no doubt that we must help people here on earth - Jesus taught us that. However, we cannot get into a “trade-off” of supporting good works at the expense of what is morally correct. Some people are more concerned with the works than they are with morality and that itself is a problem. The two must work hand-in-hand. It is in understanding faith and morals from which good works stem. Morals, however, do not stemp from good works necessarily. Planned parenthood probably feels it is doing good works, but it is not moral. However, if I have a sense of morality, I may find myself working at a crisis pregnancy center, or talking to women on the phone who think their only choice is to butcher the baby out of them.

Stepping over a homeless man - that is wrong for anyone. However, since all of us do not work with the homless of our time on a daily basis, it is also justifiable to support those centers who do. If I send $100 to an inner city Capuchin soup kitchen I am using just one of my resources to help. I can do more by volunteering at the soup kitchen.

How many here on this forum, who are concerned with the homeless man on the street are going to open their doors today and give him a bed, bath and a meal? Mother Theresa did and she was a saint. Are we all called to take each and every homeless person we see on the street into our homes, irrespective of their psychological status, drug addictions, or other things that can be dangerous to a family? Look at the recent abductions that resulted in killings and it involved drifters or homeless people. This does not mean they are all bad. Sure, they are in need of help and there are professionals that do this in safe ways - if we cough up the money. Is it not sacrifice to forgo something in order to send in that $100? Or to give up a Saturday afternnoon to work in a soup kitchen or pregnancy center?

People do good works and these actions are often graces from God that come from frequent reception of the Sacraments, humble assent to Church teaching, and a pure love of God and His Word.

More on McBrien

IMHO, McBrien is one of the last people we should be using to help form our conscience. I will always point out the many heresies of McBrien for those who innocently got caught up in being taught from his infamous, condemned book. Why should I read anything this man has to say as opposed to reading a loyal and faithful theologian such as, Fr. John A. Hardon, whose works have never in the least been questioned as true?

More articles on heretical teachings in “Catholicism”

credo.stormloader.com/Doctrine/mcbrien1.htm

theviewfromthecore.com/20020325/column.html

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/06-96/7/7.html

In a hundred years will the Church formally consider him a heretic? Will this period be in the Churchs history books as a heresy like the others before it?

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

buffalo:

In a hundred years will the Church formally consider him a heretic? Will this period be in the Churchs history books as a heresy like the others before it?

Truth transcends time. Understanding can get refined, but it is not going to take a 180 on a piece of dogma or doctrine.

To which of his heretical statements, highlighted by the USCCB are you referring that will change?

In 100 years those Catholics will wonder how the leaders of this era didn’t put him out to pasture with Hans Kung, Charles Curran and the rest of the heretics that dissenting themselves into full separation with the Church. That is how new religions have formed.

Have you studied any of the points made by anyone pertaining to his heretical statements, or are you simply defending him without having a specific point of reference?

 

[buffalo]

Lux_et_veritas:

Truth transcends time. Understanding can get refined, but it is not going to take a 180 on a piece of dogma or doctrine.

To which of his heretical statements, highlighted by the USCCB are you referring that will change?

In 100 years those Catholics will wonder how the leaders of this era didn’t put him out to pasture with Hans Kung, Charles Curran and the rest of the heretics that dissenting themselves into full separation with the Church. That is how new religions have formed.

Have you studied any of the points made by anyone pertaining to his heretical statements, or are you simply defending him without having a specific point of reference?

In no way I am defending him. I believe he is a heretic and should be excommunicated.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Lux_et_veritas:

And, it is being made known to you right now. Read what the US Bishops are saying. Look at the specifics!

Thank you for the detailed reply. I know that “the kingdom” must be a pretty sensitive subject, because once when I was in a lockup ward I told a priest I had some “vision” or “ideas” or something like that about how the kingdom was being formed gradually, even now. He told me I mustn’t speak of it, and since he (Fr. Sherlock) was someone I respected, I obeyed him until a week or two ago when I finally couldn’t stand it and spilled the beans here on this forum. I hope it didn’t do too much damage, because I suspect it was pretty abstract and incomprehensible, if not downright nonsensical.

People with unusual states of consciousness, whether due to being very contemplative or just plain kooky, come up with some ideas that are fascinating, and who knows the difference sometimes between a nut and a prophet? The Bible is full of miserable misfits that Christ used to start His Church, that nobody probably would have guessed would become spiritual leaders.

Maybe this priest was a heretic, or maybe he was just venturing his own personal opinions. Whatever, maybe this is the kind of thing that explains why those who pursue the spiritual journey full time are mostly in monastic settings under very controlled conditions. It’s like the people that Christ healed and said, “tell nobody of this” but they were so excited they couldn’t help proclaim it. That’s kind of like how I felt when I finally “broke the seal” on my own ideas of the kingdom. I was not obedient, but I blabbed because I just couldn’t keep what I saw as immense beauty to myself. Doesn’t make me right or wrong, but it is so difficult to describe in words that it is almost impossible to talk about it without giving a wrong impression.

I think that’s one of the reasons the world does not understand people who are truly on the spiritual journey. Our language is designed to convey messages between people, and depends on common understandings for the words to have meaning. Few enough people get into these kinds of states, and when they do they are often very excited and/or anxious, that our language has not evolved to where we even know how to talk about these things. Maybe in another 100 or 1000 years the Church will have been able to describe more details about the kingdom so we can talk about it outside of mental wards, prisons, and in conference with Spiritual Directors.

If McBrien resided under different Bishop, he likely would have went the way of Kung and others. McBrien subscribes to much of Kung’s and Curran’s theology and both have been booted.

I’ll take your word for all that, since I have no knowledge on this matter. From what you have said, it certainly makes sense.

As to not addressing the original statement, I have not had time to dig into it yet and will put it on my list, of other things to dig up.

I apologize if I came off judgmental. If I did, it was probably because somehow what was hidden found a way to become exposed.

Stepping over a homeless man …

… center?

I fully agree. Everyone has a different vocation. For me, the part about “stepping over” the homeless man wasn’t as bad as the part about “feeling irritated” about it, so I don’t think we are in any disagreement there.

Why should I read anything this man has to say as opposed to reading a loyal and faithful theologian such as, Fr. John A. Hardon, whose works have never in the least been questioned as true?

No reason at all. Also I have no problem with suggesting the person reads different books.

The reason I reacted, and if there is any truth to this I think from your explanations I trust you will not take this as an insult, is this: It looked to me (on the surface) that you had taken a comment from a person who had found some peace and was sharing it, and – shall I say – “belittling” it because, probably unknown to him, it was from a poor source.

If the word “belittling” sounds harsh, I don’t intend to levy that as a judgment against you, but as an observation from being an overly-sensitive and defensive person with weak faith myself, as to how someone with like weaknesses might have felt about your reply. If you find it useful, then please feel free to take it; if not, then leave it. I guess I err on the side of saying too much than not enough, as I lived for decades not saying enough when I should have and it didn’t serve me or anyone else well. I have no beef at all with you, and I hope that you have not found my posts to be wasteful or counterproductive.

Alan

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Peace, Alan!

Maybe in my zeal to get an important point across about Fr. McBrien I did come across the wrong way. I’m sure there are things that McBrien says that are in alignment with Catholic teaching. But many things he says are not in alignment with Catholic doctrine and dogma.

It is a very sensitive issue with me because I was driven from desire to get a theology degree at a local seminary. Not only was the local seminary full of progressive types who poked fun of and mocked anyone who was devotional, traditional, and orthodox in their beliefs, but the material that was presented to us provided no stable ground in basic theology. Straight out of the shoot and my class was hurled into a book which had been lambasted by the USCCB for the progressive agenda it promoted, cloaked in smooth talk. Well, when even our bishops conference had a problem with it, I knew it wasn’t just me.

Add to that, the priest teaching the class making a joke out of people who pray the Rosary! Now I did not pray the rosary or devotions at that time, but my father did and it hurt me badly to hear a priest talk like that about people like my dad. Progressive theologians and priests are all too ready to be inclusive of anyone including people who promote ordination of women and gay marriage, but when it comes to orthodox Catholics, they need not knock lest the door hit them in the rear.

Fr. McBrien’s theology is problematic in the Marian aspect and it explains, in part, why this professor was so down on her. While some Catholics like to stereotype all orthodox, traditional catholics into some “holier than thou” category, many do not have a clue just how persecuted orthodox Catholics have been in seminaries and in parishes. Much of it was fueled by the theology of McBrien.

Here are just a few things that can be found in this list of problematic Catholics on McBrien:

• Says, among other things, that Jesus did not establish the Catholic Church, and calls into question the virginal conception of Jesus and the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, and promotes dissent.
• Supporter of [Call to Action](Dissenting Organizations to Action).
• Claims that a future Pope must overturn the infallible document disallowing women “priests” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).

ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/disspeop.htm

I’m a little sensitive to the whole issue of Fr. McBrien because his book introduced impurities that many progressive priests, theologians and others tried to pass of as “Catholicism”. Many unsuspecting people are walking around today believing what he wrote in that book and the USCCB only covered the tip of the iceberg on what was incorrect in it.

I feel cheated. I had a right to take an intro theology course and to learn what the Catholic Church teaches, not what some theologian wishes it taught.

Anyway, that is why it drives me batty when someone brings it up.

Sorry, Tome - if you were unaware of the controversies surrounding McBrien.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Lux_et_veritas:

I feel cheated. I had a right to take an intro theology course and to learn what the Catholic Church teaches, not what some theologian wishes it taught.

Anyway, that is why it drives me batty when someone brings it up.

Sorry, Tome - if you were unaware of the controversies surrounding McBrien.

You know what? I think that many of us do this; I know I do.

When a topic comes up that hits me personally (which btw involves Both Sides of many issues, as I have played many roles) then I tend to get defensive if I hear it mentioned. Also if I see fit to mention it to someone else, I tend to mix in my “unresolved ghosts” that I still feel angry about.

I think on this forum I have been to harsh in accusing, and too defensive both, and probably more because of my lifetime of baggage than anything else.

If it isn’t my imagination, the whole tone of these forums are improving where I think we are starting to learn to back off when we see trouble. This way, with so many of us with so many experiences, we are bound to trigger somebody’s baggage at any time, so escalation is very easy to fall into.

Instead, I’ve found that things from way back that I think I got over come to mind here when I hear people talking, and yes they do affect the way I write and the way I interpret what I read.

This actually sound to me like it could be a great blessing for us all, because a couple times I didn’t even realize I was angry until a person reacted to it, then suddenly guess what? An Old Ghost immediately came to mind, showing me where the anger came from.

If we continue to fellowship this way, calling attention to any bad attitudes we recognize in a kind way, then I think we can actually help each other recognize these things and help us purge our emotional attachments to past events.

I have been really impressed with your posts, but frankly I don’t care enough about this one priest to even look into his fallacies. If there is something in particular other than what you quoted you find interesting or would like to discuss, that’s great.

Gosh I can’t even imagine being in the situation you described. Never in my life have I heard a priest make a joke about a Rosary, unless it was obviously something about Protestant views or something I guess, but no, if I’ve ever heard such a thing I don’t think I would have forgotten it easily. My wife and children make rosaries to give to missions, and my grandmother was very devoted to Mary. I can definitely understand how you can be touchy about these subjects.

In short, I think these forums rock, and I appreciate you and all the others who contribute.

Alan

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Alan,

With regards to the rosary, people have no idea what is being perpetrated in the name of Catholicism, in particular against the BVM and devotion to her. And, it is happening right in the seminaries. It has been exposed through books like, Goodbye, Good Men by Michael S. Rose among others, but one thing I find in many progressives I know, but not all, is almost a disdain for Our Lady. Most especially, among women who want to be priests. Of course, the BVM was a model of humlity and obedience. She was not into such self-importance as to take on a role that was more meaningful to herself. Rather she said, “Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum” or, “Be it done unto me according to your Word”. She accepted what God had in store for her, not what she wanted. She showed how humility enables us to see what God wants for us and how pride acts as a barrier.

I grew up not really having much feeling at all for her, but only recently, since May, when I stumbled into a traditional parish, did I come to open up and begin to learn more about her and her importance.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Lux_et_veritas:

I grew up not really having much feeling at all for her, but only recently, since May, when I stumbled into a traditional parish, did I come to open up and begin to learn more about her and her importance.

I still find it pretty significant that the final act recorded in Luke in Christ’s mission involves handing over his own Mother, at which time he said only “I thirst” and “it is finished”

Spritually, it figures if Christ is our adopted Brother and Friend, both of which he dared call us and told us we dared pray to “our Father” then Mary must be our spiritual mother.

One thing I think can be done is to encourage membership in the Knights of Columbus. I am guilty of missing the last many meetings, but maybe I’ll get back active. They are staunch defenders of Mary. Sorry women can’t join, but I think at least getting the men this unified behind Mary is a plus.

Alan

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

AlanFromWichita:

Sorry women can’t join, but I think at least getting the men this unified behind Mary is a plus.

Alan

When it comes to religious groups, such as K of C, I see nothing wrong with men’s only or women’s only groups. I am proud of the things the Knights do and there are so many other groups in which I can participate. It just seems selfish to me, and prideful, for women to try to push their way into such groups.

I had an emptiness with regards to Mary, but it stemmed from no exposure, other than seeing my dad pray a Rosary and talk about her, which is more than most Catholics in the '70’s got. Although, all that dad tried to do was undone when I got active in the youth group up at Church and Catholics there pretty much never bothered with anything Marian at all, and I took on an attitude of “why do devotions when I can simply talk to God?”

I decided to trust a little more and to get into some Marian devotions. I’ve now been praying the Rosary daily since May and decided to plunge into the Total Consecration to Jesus through Mary, which is coming up on the 15th. I’ve been using the 33-day preparation based on St. Louis de Montfort’s method. It is loaded with readings and prayers for 33 days. While I do not fully grasp this whole concept, I saw the list of popes and others I respect who themselves had taken the plunge. With that, I move forward mainly on faith while working to understand this whole thing better through reading. It is working. True Devotion to Mary by de Montfort and the Secrets of the Rosary are two books I have been slowly chewing on and they are quite interesting.

Imagine the Mystical Body where Christ is the Head and we are the members. If Christ was born through Mary (Head), it stands to reason, as de Montfort says, that the members too would pass through her. One does not give birth only to a head.

How does this relate to the topic of Cafeteria Catholicism? As I said earlier, I have no problems with those who struggle with the faith. However, I believe those struggles need to be dealt with in a way that does not create scandal or lead other people down a path of confusion. I humbly search for answers in true Catholic material by good theologians and when I still don’t get it, I ask an orthodox Catholic priest to help me to understand. When I struggled with contraception, no one knew. It took many years for me to finally come to an acceptance, but I never once, that I recall, led others to question it by taking my doubts public.

I have a problem with blatant dissent - people who have thought it over, who are no longer struggling and simply want the Church to change. That is a true Cafeteria Catholic to me. They are obstinate and what I find most often is that they have not even made an attempt to dig deeply into why the Church has taken the position it has. Many who do, end up where I have. Some continue to work and chew on it, but that should always be done quietly, with prayer and reflection, study, and dialogue with people who themselves have accepted it.

In other words, doubts should be dealt with as if the particular teaching we struggle with is something to which we should assent, not something in which we need to decide if we are going to assent to or not. By taking the first approach I go to sources that support it and get that end of the argument first, not at the same time and not last. I am helping myself to assent to something, be it papal infallibility on faith and morals or contraception. Christopher West has so many books out that young Catholics are now reading based on JP2’s Theology of the Body. I have seen complete change in people based on this material. This makes it a good source of information if one is struggling and truly trying to help themselves to accept the teaching. If they are not trying to accept it, they won’t bother with it because it may drive change.

What I also find all to often among those who blatantly dissent, such as McBrien, Kung, Curran, and the people who loyally follow them at events like Call to Action which many true dissenters support, is that they have shoved Mary aside. That is how you get a book written by a Nun-theologian suggesting Mary is simply our “sister” and not our mother. The book is shameful in how it reduces Mary and disregards Jesus’ words, “This is your mother…”

newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0105-gardiner

Fortunately, the attempts by many older and retiring Nuns and priests (spirit of V2 folk), to dissolve Mary have failed. The young, inspired by JP2, are taking her up now. It is driving some like McBrien nuts.

 

[Morning_Glory]

I could only read part way through this thread because my heart became so heavy.

I do not mean to patronize or to insult anyone, but one thing came up a few times and it sort of cocked my head to the side.

Faith is believing without having proof. Quoting the Bible is not proof, since the dissenter will find thier own meaning in the quote for thier own purposes.

Right now I only see people hurting each other to prove they are the greater/more faithful Catholic.

If you have problems with “Cafeteria Catholics”, please stop insulting and start praying.

If “Cafeteria Catholics” have problems with others more strict beliefs, stop insulting and start praying.

Everyone chooses their faith. We may not have choices when we are children, but when we grow up, we choose to stay in the faith or to change it. If you feel you have not a choice in the matter, perhaps reflecting on what you want in/from the Church is a more productive use of your time.