Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?

[liturgyluver]

Liturgy,

You have proposed Church teaching on Homosexuality and I have pointed out that the Church teaching is based on Charity in Christ.

Help me understand, your exhibit of Charity, by telling me, publically, for all to read, as your entry into discussion your understanding of your world and what you do not know of my world. Are you being Charitable to me?

You believe I “ironically ignore” the Church message. Explain this irony and since you are in a position to teach. Teach me and I will thank you publically as those that have thanked you for your past teaching.

Your previous comments speak for themselves. Have fun.

 

[CopticChristian]

Your previous comments speak for themselves. Have fun

Liturgy,

Thank you. I read all your threads and as you might imagine I understand your point of view. This post is explicit in what I find.

In this thread you responded to TheRealJuliane in the same way that you have responded in this thread…posts #228, 223, 234

Re: Obama to business owners: 'You didn’t build that’

Post 338

Originally Posted by TheRealJuliane
I am horrified by your lack of basic understanding of posts on this thread.

This is what you said…

**

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

**

I know you have seen many times the list of rules to follow

rule 1. you are not in charge
rule 2. When you wonder about what to do refer to rule 1

I suggest that you reread your postings in this thread.posts #228, 223, 234

I ask you to reflect on your response to TheRealJuliane and then refer to this rule.

12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

If you want to preach, practice what you preach…

 

[liturgyluver]

Liturgy,

Thank you. I read all your threads and as you might imagine I understand your point of view. This post is explicit in what I find.

In this thread you responded to TheRealJuliane in the same way that you have responded in this thread…posts #228, 223, 234

Re: Obama to business owners: 'You didn’t build that’

This is what you said…

---

I know you have seen many times the list of rules to follow

rule 1. you are not in charge
rule 2. When you wonder about what to do refer to rule 1

I suggest that you reread your postings in this thread.posts #228, 223, 234

I ask you to reflect on your response to TheRealJuliane and then refer to this rule.

If you want to preach, practice what you preach…

Thank you again for your wise words and for showing such interest and taking SO much trouble.

 

[Elizabeth502]

CopticChristian, I live in the real world - not the imaginary one populated on this threads. If anybody were homosexual, they would be very brave indeed to put their heads over the parapet given some of the comments that have been read there.

I see that you have been on the forum less than a year. In that brief time, however, there have been a number of threads on which Catholic homosexuals, devotedly practicing their faith in communion with Rome, have declared their SSA without fear or shame. Some have opened threads, others have contributed to threads. I don’t recall any of those being in the non-Catholic Religions forum or the News forums. They are generally in one of three Apologetics fora. Occasionally they may contribute to Spirituality, to Vocations (they have), and to Liturgy & Sacraments.

And before you joined CAF there were many other such posts and threads as well.

They are well-supported and embraced in their struggles, just as all of the rest of us sinners need.

Coptic is not referring to those, however. He is referring to the argumentative agendas of those who oppose religion in general, Christianity/Catholicism in particular, or the specific, unchangeable Church doctrine on human sexuality. It is this group which tends to dominate the discussion. Many of them register on CAF with that apparent purpose in mind: to convert and even to control. The others don’t have such an agenda; some have come forward (as I say); some have not. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the latter are “afraid” to. Those who understand and are prepared to support Catholic doctrine, no matter their orientation, have nothing to “fight” about. They are in the same struggle against sin which we all have, daily. Therefore, their particular orientation (hetero- or homosexual) is moot.

 

[CopticChristian]

Thank you again for your wise words and for showing such interest and taking SO much trouble.

Liturgy,

It was not Barney Rubble. I usually reflect in respondin’. I find it 'elpful ter put forf consistent thoughts. we 're aw in this together and should unite.

Tanks fer da gradidude and fer nly kptlizin one wrd…yer appreciated here…

 

[LisaA]

I agree with you about making a spectacle but in my experience (and perhaps things are very different here) they don’t “make a spectacle of themselves” but on the contrary often have to contend with people making derrogatory remarks about homosexuals as people. That is what the Church tells us not to do.

Certainly the Church calls us to be charitable with respect to those struggling with various sins including same sex attraction. OTOH I have a hard time imagining the context of homosexuals encountering a multitude of derogatory comments regarding homosexuality in day to day life. Does this really happen? How often and where? As I said, I am sure there are homosexuals at Mass. I don’t know who they are, nor do I care other than in the context of caring for the souls of any of my brothers and sisters in Christ. I’ve never encountered a Priest, a Parishioner or other member of the Church going out of their way to identify and persecute homosexuals.

I do not live in a bubble and can’t say I routinely, if ever, encounter those making gratuitous and hateful remarks about homosexuals. In fact our society has become so P.C. that we’re paralyzed from making comments about even the most outrageous behavior (and by no means I refer simply to homosexuals) beause someone will “be offended.”

What I DO see is homosexuals with the attitude “We’re here! We’re queer! Deal with it!” and then when someone says this is not appropriate in public, in our schools, in the media, they are charged with being hateful. The recent flap about the CEO of a chicken franchise is a perfect example. The man said he believes in traditional male female marriage. He didn’t say his company would discriminate against homosexuals in hiring, serving or in any way. We now have mayors of large cities attempting to block the Chick Fil A franchise. That kind of action is hateful, discriminatory and bigoted.

Quite honestly where I see a lot of hatefilled, hostile and demeaning speech is with respect to Christians. We’re definitely a target group for the Left.

Lisa

 

[CopticChristian]

Certainly the Church calls us to be charitable with respect to those struggling with various sins including same sex attraction. OTOH I have a hard time imagining the context of homosexuals encountering a multitude of derogatory comments regarding homosexuality in day to day life. Does this really happen? How often and where? As I said, I am sure there are homosexuals at Mass. I don’t know who they are, nor do I care other than in the context of caring for the souls of any of my brothers and sisters in Christ. I’ve never encountered a Priest, a Parishioner or other member of the Church going out of their way to identify and persecute homosexuals.

I do not live in a bubble and can’t say I routinely, if ever, encounter those making gratuitous and hateful remarks about homosexuals. In fact our society has become so P.C. that we’re paralyzed from making comments about even the most outrageous behavior (and by no means I refer simply to homosexuals) beause someone will “be offended.”

What I DO see is homosexuals with the attitude “We’re here! We’re queer! Deal with it!” and then when someone says this is not appropriate in public, in our schools, in the media, they are charged with being hateful. The recent flap about the CEO of a chicken franchise is a perfect example. The man said he believes in traditional male female marriage. He didn’t say his company would discriminate against homosexuals in hiring, serving or in any way. We now have mayors of large cities attempting to block the Chick Fil A franchise. That kind of action is hateful, discriminatory and bigoted.

Quite honestly where I see a lot of hatefilled, hostile and demeaning speech is with respect to Christians. We’re definitely a target group for the Left.

Lisa

Lisa,

My miniscule mind understands Liz using the word “moot”…I kind of like that word…probably don’t use it often enough. For the life of me what is “OTOH”.? That one has me wondering if I missed something in my education here.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa,

My miniscule mind understands Liz using the word “moot”…I kind of like that word…probably don’t use it often enough. For the life of me what is “OTOH”.? That one has me wondering if I missed something in my education here.

OTOH…on the other hand. In the early days of email when we were paying by the minute I got in the habit of using these shortcuts. Probably not a good idea now that our time is unlimited!

Also will second the motion, Elizabeth502s post on the subject was spot on.

Lisa

 

[stewstew03]

I have seen homophobic posts on this forum and sadly from Catholics in real life who misunderstand what the church teaches on this.

And what of those who oppose the Church based on misinformation? Dan Savage’s anti-Catholic rants come to mind - are you as willing to devote your time to correct those who side with Dan Savage, as you are with those who side with the Pope?

 

[CMatt25]

OK we’re back to my original conclusion, you believe what your self tells yourself even if it’s in direct opposition to some basic fundamental Biblical teaching. Again I ask for the source of these conclusions. You thought long and hard, prayed and God told you that abortion is fine and gay marriage is fine. Does that sum it up? I had hoped you would have more than just “voices in my head”

I’m most curious that Christ needs to reform. Really? In what way? He was sinless, perfect and wholly human as well as wholly divine. What does Jesus need to do to get with the times?

First of all in regard to Christ, that was obviously a typo on my part. I meant I do not outright reject the possibility that Christ might need to reform His Church to avoid the gates of hell from prevailing.

In any case you may be back to that conclusion but no that does not sum it up. As I have explained to you I try in my faith life to discern the Holy Spirit to the best of my understanding. I strive in faith to listen to God’s voice which according to your own CCC echoes deep within our consciences where your CCC also says we are alone with God.

And I study other sources such as scholars and theologians besides Catholic ones to learn of their faith understandings. I also do not live in a theocracy but in a place of plural beliefs on abortion and SS marriage.

The bottom line is you have your faith and beliefs, religious and political and I have mine and others have theirs. And I am not interested in continuing this discussion with you on this thread any longer nor will I, after being put down for “voices within my head”. If you can’t understand what I am saying about faith, at this point we will have to agree to disagree and God bless you along your own faith journey and I shall leave it at that.

 

[CMatt25]

Friend, you may dismiss all of my posts entirely…that is your right.

Scripture has not been abandoned…the TEC has chosen to be faithful to their understanding of culture, history, science, psychology…ALONG with scripture as God reveals Himself still within history…YOU and other conservative Christians CLAIM they have abandoned scripture in the light of your beleifs…but those who have embraced sexual equality as completely biblical…have sought to remain faithful to scripture, God and the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives…since all other references to other threads are dismissed…rehasing the scriptural understanding that has led us to embrace sexual equality in marriage…it doesn’t seem it would do much good…it has been “argued” using scripture…it’s just that it’s conclusions are rejected as being “unfaithful”…I’m sure I have lots of secrets…which one do you think I might be evading?

Friend Publisher, this was an excellent post. You put things in such a clear and concise manner. God bless you.

 

[LisaA]

First of all in regard to Christ, that was obviously a typo on my part. I meant I do not outright reject the possibility that Christ might need to reform His Church to avoid the gates of hell from prevailing.

In any case you may be back to that conclusion but no that does not sum it up. As I have explained to you I try in my faith life to discern the Holy Spirit to the best of my understanding. I strive in faith to listen to God’s voice which according to your own CCC echoes deep within our consciences where your CCC also says we are alone with God.

And I study other sources such as scholars and theologians besides Catholic ones to learn of their faith understandings. I also do not live in a theocracy but in a place of plural beliefs on abortion and SS marriage.

The bottom line is you have your faith and beliefs, religious and political and I have mine and others have theirs. And I am not interested in continuing this discussion with you on this thread any longer nor will I, after being put down for “voices within my head”. If you can’t understand what I am saying about faith, at this point we will have to agree to disagree and God bless you along your own faith journey and I shall leave it at that.

CMatt it wasn’t “obviously” a typo to me. It sounds as if, having rejected Christ’s words, you believed He should “reform” or perhaps our interpretation of His words should be changed by modern culture instead of being guided by the preceding 2000 years of scholarship, tradition and wisdom. I cannot fathom the arrogance of anyone who thinks that we have suddenly discerned a right to murder unborn babies, to have men marry men, despite millenia of teaching to the contrary.

You laud we don’t live in a theocracy and thus there are different conclusions about abortion, homosexuality etc. Well it was NEVER a theocracy, nor are the reasons supporting life issues strictly religious. I am not pro-life BECAUSE I am Catholic. I was pro-life BEFORE I was Catholic and based at the time on science and a desire for consistency in application of human rights to the unborn, the disabled, the marginal as well as the robust and productive. We are either human or we are not. And if we are all human then we all deserve the same human rights…but apparently you do not agree.

You have chosen modern culture over 2000 years of Scripture, wisdom, and tradition. I think you don’t want to continue the discussion because you have no real answers to how we can make up new rights out of thin air.

Lisa

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, I agree with a good portion of what you’re saying here (i.e, we should not misrepresent those whom we oppose), but do you have any examples of the above assertion?

Thanks!

Just thinking chronologically and coming up with the first examples that come to mind:

1. Look at Gnostic texts (from the Nag Hammadi Corpus) and their understanding of Jesus as a cosmic savior who liberates people from the power of darkness, contrasting with the highly moralistic tone of some more orthodox writers of the sub-apostolic period. Then look at the way this “mythological” language becomes part of the orthodox Christian understanding of salvation in writers such as Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nyssa. (This is not the most clear-cut example, and “concern” may be the wrong word, but the last time I taught this material it struck me that this really is something of value in Gnostic texts which becomes very much a part of orthodox Christianity.)
2. A clearer and more commonly cited example is the way Semi-Arian concerns about the possible modalism of the Homoousios were addressed by the Cappadocians, leading to the First Council of Constantinople and the effective end of Arianism as a serious challenger to orthodox Christianity within the Roman Empire.
3. The rise of the mendicant orders as an answer to Catharism. Not a perfect answer, no doubt, and accompanied by much more disturbing attempts to deal with the heresy (crusade and inquisition), but a very effective one in many ways.

I would argue, as a general rule, that wherever you have a dead heresy you have a heresy whose positive insights have been incorporated into Catholicism, and wherever you have a live heresy you have one whose insights haven’t been so incorporated.

There are a number of other examples where I think this is in the process of happening, but it’s a long process. I would argue that classical Protestantism is one such example. Raniero Cantalamessa’s Lenten sermons on justification by faith may prove to have been the sign of the final demise of classical Protestantism as a serious challenge to Catholicism (combined with the rise of the “New Perspective” championed by scholars such as N. T. Wright).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

This is a rather sunny view of liberals in general.

I think the better terms would be “fair and charitable,” or more precisely “following the Golden Rule.”

Jesus told us to treat people as we would like to be treated, and I see no reason to except our intellectual treatment of others from this rule. If that’s “sunny,” so be it.

Do liberals recognize “truth” as good?

Certainly. And the fact that you even ask the question says something about what a distorted view you have of liberals.

One would not think so based on the distorted propaganda that permeates the debate on same-sex marriage.

That makes no sense. People are rarely fair to those with whom they disagree. This thread is a good example. That doesn’t mean that they don’t think truth is good, at least in the abstract. It’s just that in the heat of polemic it’s easy to think the worst of one’s opponents. (I know that I accused some folks on this forum of valuing Truth over truth, but I was not seriously claiming that they didn’t think truth was good. I was simply suggesting, in a rhetorical way, that they were not paying enough attention to the evidence as to what their opponents actually believed, because they assumed that possession of the Truth found in Catholicism made such care unnecessary. I was making a point about two different kinds of truth, not accusing anyone of not valuing truth at all.)

Is Dan Cathy, for example, really homophobic and bigoted?

By liberal standards, yes. I agree with you that this is unfair, but it has nothing to do with whether liberals think truth is good. They aren’t deliberately lying about him–they’re just judging him harshly because he holds views they dislike.

Those words are thrown around too often. A homophobe is someone who “fears or hates” homosexuals or homosexuality. Can one be in favor of the traditional notion of marriage without being labeled as someone who fears or hates homosexuals?

I certainly think so, as someone who rejects same-sex marriage!

However, I don’t see that the later part of your post has anything to do with your earlier (absurd and unjust) suggestion that liberals do not value truth.

Your post is itself an example of the kind of thing you’re talking about! But I have no doubts whatever that you think truth is good. I simply think that in the heat of polemic you aren’t being careful enough to be fair to those whose views you find deeply repugnant. And liberals are subject to the same defect. We all are.

Edwin

 

[CMatt25]

I think you don’t want to continue the discussion because you have no real answers to how we can make up new rights out of thin air.

You are free to think as you want but you think wrongly then. If you truly were interested in sincere, charitable dialogue and in learning of other faith perspectives held by non Catholic liberal Christians, instead of continuously saying they ignore or abandon Scripture, or have voices in their heads, it would be quite easy to do a google search and learn about and study their interpretations of Scripture and their Scriptural basis as it relates for instance to homosexuality. I did it and if I can do it, anyone can. Or I have presented their reasoning and faith beliefs on other threads here as I know Publisher has and perhaps others.

But as Publisher said it is your right to dismiss every one one of our posts if that is your choice. Yet as Publisher has explained to you as well, all you are saying is liberals don’t share your understanding of Scripture.

I simply am not going to reject outright that the human finite mind can not arrive at further understandings of Scripture and understanding of matters of faith as time goes along. I am not stuck on 2000 yrs. I do not reject outright that as the United Church of Christ says “God is still speaking”. I do understand what you believe though. I was a Catholic. At least the Church said I was. It still does as far as I understand it’s teaching. But I was told one too many times here I wasn’t or could not consider myself one. So this and the view I’ve experienced from, for me, too many Catholics here, that you’re 100% absolutely certain you know the truth and everyone else is wrong, and the conservative politics, has driven me even further away from your faith. But in any case God bless. And peace be with you.

 

[CMatt25]

Like I said…I’m in excellent company with CMatt.

Peace on your journey as well friend.

Publisher, you are too kind. I wish I had your patience. But thank you for your words. I am with you as well. Peace to all along our journeys.

 

[LisaA]

You are free to think as you want but you think wrongly then. If you truly were interested in sincere, charitable dialogue and in learning of other faith perspectives held by non Catholic liberal Christians, instead of continuously saying they ignore or abandon Scripture, or have voices in their heads, it would be quite easy to do a google search and learn about and study their interpretations of Scripture and their Scriptural basis as it relates for instance to homosexuality. I did it and if I can do it, anyone can. Or I have presented their reasoning and faith beliefs on other threads here as I know Publisher has and perhaps others.

But as Publisher said it is your right to dismiss every one one of our posts if that is your choice. Yet as Publisher has explained to you as well, all you are saying is liberals don’t share your understanding of Scripture.

I simply am not going to reject outright that the human finite mind can not arrive at further understandings of Scripture and understanding of matters of faith as time goes along. I am not stuck on 2000 yrs. I do not reject outright that as the United Church of Christ says “God is still speaking”. I do understand what you believe though. I was a Catholic. At least the Church said I was. But I was told one too many times here I wasn’t or could not consider myself one. So this and the view I’ve experienced from, for me, too many Catholics here, that you’re 100% absolutely certain you know the truth and everyone else is wrong, has driven me even further away from your faith. But in any case God bless. And peace be with you.

CMatt I “dismiss” your posts because you never answer the questions. I ask where and how have you found a source of your beliefs that certainly appear to be in direct opposition to Scripture, tradition, the Church’s wisdom and tough intellectual scrutiny of all Her teachings. You never answer, just say that you’ve read things and seen things and if I want to know I should Google the subject.

Jesus did not need to address every minute aspect of life…WWJD about lightbulbs? cell phone etiquette? women’s fashions?..to apply His words to life today. Some truths are timeless. Yes, I believe God is still speaking, but I haven’t heard him contradict His previous words in matters of great importance. Have you? Is liberal Christianity privy to some new revelations that were never passed along to the Church or other traditional Christian faith traditions? Do you think He has evolved to accept abortion, homosexual ‘marriage,’ or other cultural shifts? Has God gone P.C. on us? I see no evidence of that and so I continue to question the source of your conclusions.

I am not 100% certain because there is no 100%. But I am a lot more sure of a teaching or of wisdom that has stood the test of time than one that sort of popped up in the last few decades based on secular influence. What I dispute in liberal Christianity is that they appear to have no basis for these massive structural changes of doctrine. Out of the blue TEC elevates a divorced homosexual to Bishop without questioning whether his life has warrented such a position or whether TEC’s own catechism would conclude he’s lived such a life of faith that he is the standard bearer for the church. What’s the message here? Anything goes?

And don’t think I’ve never experienced other faith traditions. Aside from my own journey from atheism to Unitarianism to Methodism to Catholicism, I spent four years in our local Episcopal Cathedral’s Spiritual Direction program. I took classes, workshops, heard lectures from extremely well known individuals of all faith traditions, from Spong to Karin Armstrong to Huston Smith to Fr Keating to Sister Joan Chittester to Peter Gomes, from Buddhism to Sufism to Judaism to Greek Orthodox. I did get a good exposure to them all. And as a seeker I found there is no place like Home. Please give those of us who have not morphed along with modern culture some credit for having studied the various issues and traditions and finding the answers in the Catholic Church. We are not all hidebound bigots just because we don’t think you can just change to go along with the times.

Again I ask, WHY do you believe what you do?

Lisa

 

[Elizabeth502]

I do not reject outright that as the United Church of Christ says “God is still speaking”.

The Roman Catholic Church would be the first, of all faith traditions, to agree that God is still speaking. So if you’ve never understood that, it seems sad to leave a Church for something that you have not yet understood.

It’s just that there’s a fundamental difference between doctrinal “speech” and one’s private spirituality “speech.” The latter has integrity and is ultimately not really share-able, as it is “direct,” so to speak. Doctrine, however, even in various Protestant circles, has a community authenticity to it, derived from those who are perceived and accepted as representing those various communities (i.e., authority figures and recognized experts). I know that there are believers (both denominational and non-denominational) who “go rogue” and just decide on their own “not to believe” what their congregations confess, but more often than not, those who affiliate and regularly practice & worship do assent to the body of teaching “owned” by that tradition. It’s not that it’s not possible to deviate; it just somewhat defeats the purpose of affiliating and identifying, as if the worship aspect were the only thing attaching one to the group, and in that case (“I’ll just do my own thing”) it becomes more of a social event than a lived faith, consisting of both worship and belief, seamlessly. I’ve known a fair number of Protestants in my time, and I’ve never known them to consider that they can casually invent or “correct” doctrine based on “personal belief.” It’s sometimes something of a struggle for them, too, just as it is for Catholics: to assent to the particular faith tradition.

The Holy Spirit is constantly speaking to the Church, and not only through its hierarchy, I will add. God speaks through the events of our personal and collective lives. God speaks through and in lay people. God speaks in convocations (lay and religious) and in formal councils. God spoke in a major way at Vatican 2, but unfortunately many Catholics misinterpreted some of that speech. (The test of the validity of that speech is found in simply referring to the documents.)

 

[Elizabeth502]

So this and the view I’ve experienced from, for me, too many Catholics here, that you’re 100% absolutely certain you know the truth and everyone else is wrong

If any of us current Catholics, never mind the vast majority (certainly over 95%) of deceased Catholics, had “100% absolute certainty,” we would be probably in line for canonization, or perhaps even in competition with Jesus Himself. Virtually no one has “100% absolute certainty.” As I said earlier, that is not the definition of faith. Faith is belief despite uncertainty. Faith is a theological virtue unanimously acclaimed and confessed by all Christian traditions. Even though trust is usually associated with the virtue of Hope, trust cannot be dismissed from the dynamic of faith (personal assent).

As anyone knows who has been well catechized, if I truly “know” something (with 100% pure conviction), that is not faith; that is knowledge. Even most of the verifiable scientific laws of the universe are based to some degree on faith, in that we experience gravity, but we cannot “see” it. We see the effects of gravitational pull, which is why we believe in gravity. We have faith that if we throw ourselves from a building, we will not fly, we will land, and probably expire upon impact. It is a faith-“knowledge” based on experience and the authority of others (in this case, scientists) who have explained and tested these laws, and provide us with roadmaps of how scientific laws work, just as theologians and scholars (of various faiths) provide us with roadmaps of God’s laws.

 

[fnr]

If any of us current Catholics, never mind the vast majority (certainly over 95%) of deceased Catholics, had “100% absolute certainty,” we would be probably in line for canonization, or perhaps even in competition with Jesus Himself. Virtually no one has “100% absolute certainty.”

Well-said!

And I’ll second that by saying that trying to say that 100% certainty never really is possible, especially in matters of the “unseen.” Those who try to maintain certainty end up inevitably hiding some element of reality that is incompatible with their belief system. It’s what makes fundamentalists so fun! They end up telling lies to themselves (and others) in order to maintain the illusion of certainty.