Catholic Church & the Liberals

[otjm]

Have there been any famous Catholic dissenters in history~those that were not popular at the time but have shown over the ages to have been correct or somewhat correct?

(Obviously not counting reformation~schismatics)

Just off the top of my head, Ctherine of Sienna Comes to mind; so also Joan of Arc.

Oh, and then there was St. Paul.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

So, you are saying that a “liberal Catholic” in your mind is not a Catholic?

My Post
A “liberal Catholic” wants the Holy Catholic Church, begun and sustained by the Holy Ghost (Who is perfect and can never change, decieve or be decieved) to change with the times. They come up with all sorts of advice and demands that they want to place on God for how He rules His Church and His faithful. How arrogant!!! Who do they think they are to try to control God, and to tell Him how things must be done with His own.
I am not trying to kick anyone out of the Catholic Church. But, in order to be a Catholic, then you must believe, accept and practice all of the rules(given to us by God for our abundant life with Him). Don’t say you are Catholic if you are against the things that the Catholic Church is and stands for. That is falsehood. And if one believes the falsehood, he is decieving himself. I have to wonder if he also believes he is decieving God, because God cannot be decieved. I hope all of the liberal, if it feels good do it, so called Catholics are truly converted and fall in love with the real Jesus Christ who is “THE” Way, Truth and Life. Jesus didn’t say that He was “A” Way, Truth and Life. And there is an eternal world of difference between those two words.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Yes, I know that the subject on the previous post was long ago, but some things are just worth saying anyway.

Mr. Jim, Jesus did say that the fires of hell would not prevail against His Church. My point is, now is a great time to join the Church! There is a new generation of Catholic kids coming of age who were brought up by very reverent priests and parents. Homeschooling has done magnificent things for our future Catholic leaders. Pope John Paul II did some very wonderful things for my generation and the one coming up now. He let us know that we are important, and that Jesus really is alive! That He loves each and every one of us. Pope John Paul II told us the most important thing of all…the TRUTH…which we hadn’t heard in all of our lives!!! He let us know that the way of the Cross was not a “feel good” way, but there was no “way” that would bring us more joy in this life or the next. We are so much more joyful “truthfully” even in the midst of suffering than we ever were in the state of sin, even in the ignorance that we didn’t recognize the sin because we had not been taught. We were taught…even by those who held positions in our Church parishes, that if it feels real, it will not offend God. Therefore, at 16, people were sexually active because, at 16, you think you are really in love with whoever you are hormonally attacted to at the time. We had NO idea what we were getting into, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, physiologically or physically healthwise. And for a time we were lost. But MANY responded to His calling…which reached us through the love and messages of Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa. And we wanted the Truth, which is always better than even the best feeling lie.
Now we are teaching our children. We are not leaving their education up to the same people who tried, and nearly succeeded in destroying us. And they respond to the truth with love and joy. They know Jesus in a personal way. They are the ones you will find in Mass on a daily basis…because once a week is just not enough. They are the ones who are committing themselves to an hour/week of Adoration before the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Alter.
Yes, now is a great time to join the Holy Roman Catholic Church! Come and experience the renewal of the Holy Spirit!!!

Cherie

 

[Spiller]

I’m guessing you don’t have a clue as to how
Or maybe you’d like to argue that Church teaching on abortion, gay “marriage”, and artificial birth control is not orthodox, traditional or established and therefore “dissent” from said teaching is not liberal.

No. Do not put words in my mouth. That may well be YOUR understanding but it’s not mine.

You like that word ignorant, huh! I’m guessing most people (without axes to grind) know exactly what is meant by liberal, conservative or traditional in the context of adherence to Church teaching. Any personal inclinations outside the scope of that discussion are moot. I think you’re the only one using the phrase “universally liberal.”

One can gauge the level of ignorance some have with their misuse of terms like “liberal” and “modernist” with respect to the Church. It can be quite amusing at times – and it would be even more so if the persons were not so darned sad.

The Catholics out there trying to pin all the ills of the Church on “liberals” and bemoaning those “liberal’s” drive to “modernism” do a great disservice to the Church with their ignorant comments.

 

[Tsuwano]

I’m also not sure what is meant by labels such as “conservative” or “liberal” and I would bet the average Catholic in the pew isn’t either. I don’t think this tug of war, often seen in this forum, is such a big deal in most parishes. Sure, you’ll find curmudgeons on both sides of the ideological divide who like to stir things up and offer condemnations left and right, but most Catholics feel the Church serves them well as it is. The point is that Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church and will keep it from falling into error. The Spirit guides us no less today than it guided the Apostles in the first years of our faith. Relax. In the words of Lennon and McCartney, “let it be.” These storms will come and go, but the Lord has promised to remain with us, and Catholics believe he will.

 

[ethelzguy]

I’m also not sure what is meant by labels such as “conservative” or “liberal” and I would bet the average Catholic in the pew isn’t either. I don’t think this tug of war, often seen in this forum, is such a big deal in most parishes. Sure, you’ll find curmudgeons on both sides of the ideological divide who like to stir things up and offer condemnations left and right, but most Catholics feel the Church serves them well as it is. The point is that Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church and will keep it from falling into error. The Spirit guides us no less today than it guided the Apostles in the first years of our faith. Relax. In the words of Lennon and McCartney, “let it be.” These storms will come and go, but the Lord has promised to remain with us, and Catholics believe he will.

The term “Liberal” as applied at CAF, generally applies to anyone who supports the post-Vatican II Church.

If you’re ok with CITH, the Gather or Glory and Praise hymnal, lighter vestments for the priest, and Mass in the vernacular facing the people, you will likely be tagged a “Liberal” here.

 

[Della]

On that, I think we agree, that the problems are derived from different and varied sources. And it is because they are not from one consistent, clearly definable source (position, philosophy, heresy, insert your favorite word), that I get so tired of hearing the charge of Modernism made so frequently. It is as if we just apply a name, all is completely understood. However, the name itself is as slippery as a greased eel. too often, it simply gets down not to error, but “I don’t like that and I don’t agree with it, so I’ll call it Mondernism - that makes me look smart and keeps all of ‘them’ over ‘there’.”

That we have a whole lot of dissension within the Church takes little or no acute perception. Some of that dissension is more of a “this way or that way” issue than one of substance. Others are of substance *(e.g. women’s ordination possiblities). Too often we fail to distinguish what can be discussed and what is settled when criticizing those who disagree with us. It is much easier to sling a name at someone than it is to engage in critical thinking, and that is not something that is specific to one or another group; it seems to be generic.

I would agree with you that it seems that things move at a pace that is nigh impossible to keep up with, and that just as one issue seems to be resolved one or more new ones pop up. I would guess it won’t slow down as life in general is moving at a faster and faster pace.

But I would hazard a guess that if we were all living at the time of the Protestant reformation, we would think the same thing - and that was before the term Modernism had been coined.

I agree. And as to those living during the reformation, they probably thought the world was coming to an end–for many it did, poor things! Every age has had its battles, it’s just that our age seems to be losing any kind of faith, as Jesus lamented when he asked: “Will there be any faith on earth when the Son of Man returns?” (quoting badly from memory), and when he said: “If they do these things in the case of the green wood, what will they do in the case of the dry wood?”

The world wants to leave God behind now days–a thing that was unheard of in Jesus’ time and for centuries up until the Enlightenment (or there abouts). People of faith are going to be fighting more and more against it. All the more reason to be orthodox in our beliefs and practices, and to recognize the same in people of good will who are members of other faiths. It isn’t orthodoxy that divides us from one another, only from the world which desires to kill faith and freedom everywhere. That’s how I see it, anyway.

 

[Spiller]

I forgot you were the model of how to be. Sorry. Next time I will remember Pope Spiller in my prayers.

What you stated above applies to me in no way. I’m a traditionalist, and you don’t know me. Deal with it.

I’ve tried to get past all the stereotypes and rhetoric on this forum. It’s impossible. I guess I’ll just join in.

One can dissent in both “liberal” and “traditional” ways. Dissent is dissent.

 

[JuanCarlos]

One can dissent in both “liberal” and “traditional” ways. Dissent is dissent.

How can one be a traditional dissident? Unless there was a point in time where the Church taught error. Traditionalism simply means believing and behaving how they did things “back in the day”.

 

[Spiller]

I think the straw that really broke the camel’s back is the hypocrisy displayed by many self-proclaimed “traditionalists” over the matter of communion posture.

The Church wasn’t going to tell them to stand by golly! They knew better! What did they do? They ignored the Church’s voice and followed their egos.

Their cries were so loud and prolonged that the offered some direction – don’t refuse communion to anyone because they are kneeling, but do offer counsel outside of Mass on the reasons for unity in posture and the importance of following Church directives.

Traditionalists heard the first part loud and clear “don’t refuse communion to anyone because they are kneeling” and it was chanted like a mantra! I don’t believe I have ever heard any of them relate their change in posture once they were counseled outside of Mass on the importance of following the Church. How sad.

This issue categorically lowered my opinion of many self-proclaimed “traditionalists” because they are in reality nothing more than hypocrites.

They talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk.

 

[Spiller]

How can one be a traditional dissident? Unless there was a point in time where the Church taught error. Traditionalism simply means believing and behaving how they did things “back in the day”.

I have seen many things that “traditionalists” embrace as being super-pious yet they are nothing more than abuses/dissent.

Someone mentioned that their priest kneels through the entire EP. A gaggle of traditionalists chimed in about how wonderful and beautiful that is. This posture is not directed in either the OF or the EF, yet these traditionalists found the individual priest’s act to be superior to what the Church actually directs.

Very recently some traditionalist said EMsHC should NEVER be used in the OF no matter the situation. That’s dissenting from what the Church directs/allows.

I have heard traditionalists suggest the Pauline Mass was invalid. More dissent.

I have heard traditionalists suggest it is a sin to touch a sacred vessel during communion.

I have heard from some traditionalists that communion-in-hand is wrong – no matter what the Church actually directs/allows

Many traditionalists continue to kneel at communion in the OF. Do they just ignore the counsel they receive outside of Mass from their pastors?

One of the more ludicrous ones is the joy that erupts from some traditionalists when their priests don a maniple at the OF in defiance of what the Church actually directs.

Let me know if you want more. I know of many more examples where some “traditionalists” feel they know better than the Church herself and I find that troubling.

 

[ethelzguy]

How can one be a traditional dissident? Unless there was a point in time where the Church taught error. Traditionalism simply means believing and behaving how they did things “back in the day”.

You mean, like SSPX or Sedevacanists? Or like “rogue” tradtionalists who find fault with everything in the Church since Vatican II?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I think the straw that really broke the camel’s back is the hypocrisy displayed by many self-proclaimed “traditionalists” over the matter of communion posture.

The Church wasn’t going to tell them to stand by golly! They knew better! What did they do? They ignored the Church’s voice and followed their egos.

Their cries were so loud and prolonged that the offered some direction – don’t refuse communion to anyone because they are kneeling, but do offer counsel outside of Mass on the reasons for unity in posture and the importance of following Church directives.

Traditionalists heard the first part loud and clear “don’t refuse communion to anyone because they are kneeling” and it was chanted like a mantra! I don’t believe I have ever heard any of them relate their change in posture once they were counseled outside of Mass on the importance of following the Church. How sad.

This issue categorically lowered my opinion of many self-proclaimed “traditionalists” because they are in reality nothing more than hypocrites.

They talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk.

I resent that. When I am in the Presence of My Crucified Savior, I am all but compelled to kneel at times. And, for the record, I have been refused Holy Communion! When I am feeling especially close to Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Alter, why should I not be kneeling? HE is GOD !!!, and every knee shall bow, every tongue proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord. You do not have nearly enough knowledge about my personal relationship with my Savior and Lord to label me in any way.
When they took away the kneelers at Mass for Holy Communion, they took away our ability to show reverence to Jesus as we recieved Him! They didn’t do it to increase our reverence! Now I can go into any number of “Catholic” Masses, and I find that people aren’t even allowed to kneel at any time during the Mass. There is NO reverence shown to God. Reverence is not taught. Nor is honor for the position that the priest holds. WHAT IS WRONG WITH TRADITION?!?!
What is wrong with kneeling in Mass during the Eucharistic Prayers? And what is so horrible about people recieving Jesus from a kneeling position? And, whatever you answer, do you think that Jesus will agree with you, against someone who wants to show reverence when you meet Him on Judgement Day?

 

[JuanCarlos]

The Pope himself gives communion on the tongue while kneeling, Spiller. Liberal bishops’ conferences aren’t God almighty, and unless the Pope proclaims it is sinful to receive on the ground on the tongue (which, because it is not a sin and because the Pope encourages this practice will never happen) I will receive in this manner until I am too old and feeble to kneel, in which case I will still receive on the tongue until I die.

Do you think we like to be scolded at by priests when we kneel in front of them, and be given dirty/condescending looks? We’re not doing it for vainglory or pride- we’re doing it because Jesus Christ is physically present before us, and we would never dare presume to stand before Our Lord, as if equals. What other do does not concern me, but that is how I approach the Lord, personally.

 

[Auntie_M]

The things I object to coming from bottom to top are listed in my prior response, abortion and the right to choose and so on, I don’t frown on the Holy Spirit working in this manner( Iam refering to the marian dogmas that were revealed in this way), what I do object to is the 8th of May movment,women priests, follow you’re conscience not the teaching of the RCC, giving the eucharist to public sinners (pro-choice activests and those who have the power to effect political change in the pro-choice arena and do nothing). Perhaps if priests followed Christs example and mentioned hell more than Heaven we would not have abortion as a leagel option.

ps. sorry if I have ruffled any feathers out there but abortion stinks.

I am terribly sorry to contradict your statement about “following Christ’s example and mentioning hell more than heaven”. but in reality (Biblically speaking) Christ spoke VERY LITTLE about hell.
Christ preached LOVE. Just as the commandents.

I think we need to get rid of any and all “labels”. They just cause alot of misunderstanding which also lead to confusion. (And we all know who the father of confusion is, don’t we)

 

[Auntie_M]

The term “Liberal” as applied at CAF, generally applies to anyone who supports the post-Vatican II Church.

If you’re ok with CITH, the Gather or Glory and Praise hymnal, lighter vestments for the priest, and Mass in the vernacular facing the people, you will likely be tagged a “Liberal” here.

I’m just Catholic…

 

[Auntie_M]

I have seen many things that “traditionalists” embrace as being super-pious yet they are nothing more than abuses/dissent.

Someone mentioned that their priest kneels through the entire EP. A gaggle of traditionalists chimed in about how wonderful and beautiful that is. This posture is not directed in either the OF or the EF, yet these traditionalists found the individual priest’s act to be superior to what the Church actually directs.

Very recently some traditionalist said EMsHC should NEVER be used in the OF no matter the situation. That’s dissenting from what the Church directs/allows.

I have heard traditionalists suggest the Pauline Mass was invalid. More dissent.

I have heard traditionalists suggest it is a sin to touch a sacred vessel during communion.

I have heard from some traditionalists that communion-in-hand is wrong – no matter what the Church actually directs/allows

Many traditionalists continue to kneel at communion in the OF. Do they just ignore the counsel they receive outside of Mass from their pastors?

One of the more ludicrous ones is the joy that erupts from some traditionalists when their priests don a maniple at the OF in defiance of what the Church actually directs.

Let me know if you want more. I know of many more examples where some “traditionalists” feel they know better than the Church herself and I find that troubling.

Very good post, Spiller, I have found that to be true also. It’s as if they listen only to the “Traditionalist” and their opinions. But fail to even recognize what the Church teaches. There is NO such entity as “Moderism”. These are just the times we live in now. A label of anything is just that, a label, and many many people live by labels…some good and some bad. Why do we have to label?
I’ll even go one further and imagine…

Nero, when hearing of the Christ’s birth…Did he say, oh no, these modern times are just out of hand.These youngsters are going to take over the world. And that is why he had them all killed.

 

[Auntie_M]

How can one be a traditional dissident? Unless there was a point in time where the Church taught error. Traditionalism simply means believing and behaving how they did things “back in the day”.

Dear… “Back in their day…” was THEIR modern time

Was it all called “moderism” then?

 

[Auntie_M]

I resent that. When I am in the Presence of My Crucified Savior, I am all but compelled to kneel at times. And, for the record, I have been refused Holy Communion! When I am feeling especially close to Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Alter, why should I not be kneeling? HE is GOD !!!, and every knee shall bow, every tongue proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord. You do not have nearly enough knowledge about my personal relationship with my Savior and Lord to label me in any way.
When they took away the kneelers at Mass for Holy Communion, they took away our ability to show reverence to Jesus as we recieved Him! They didn’t do it to increase our reverence! Now I can go into any number of “Catholic” Masses, and I find that people aren’t even allowed to kneel at any time during the Mass. There is NO reverence shown to God. Reverence is not taught. Nor is honor for the position that the priest holds. WHAT IS WRONG WITH TRADITION?!?!
What is wrong with kneeling in Mass during the Eucharistic Prayers? And what is so horrible about people recieving Jesus from a kneeling position? **And, whatever you answer, do you think that Jesus will agree with you, against someone who wants to show reverence when you meet Him on Judgement Day?/**QUOTE]
Highlights are mine

You evidently have not gone to the same ones I have gone to.
Kneeling is NOT prohibited. It is even encouraged. And NO one is refused communion just because they kneel (or stand). That’s simply hogwash.

The only thing I see is wrong with '“Tradition” is that all people do not follow it. The Tradition of the Church is to obey the Pope. Yet it is the “Modernist” who get blasted for not kneeling. Tell me, which is the greater sin. Not kneeling or not obeying the Pope?
Which do you think Jesus would choose. He did say the “I will build MY church on this rock”. The Rock was Peter, the chair of Peter is still occupied by his successor. We are to follow Christ, so we are to follow his Vicar on earth. And as Mary says, “Do what He tells you to do”

 

[Cranch]

There is NO such entity as “Moderism”. These are just the times we live in now. A label of anything is just that, a label, and many many people live by labels…some good and some bad. Why do we have to label?

You confuse “Modernism” with “contemporary.” Pope Pius X was under no illusion as to the reality of Modernism:39. It may, perhaps, seem to some, Venerable Brethren, that We have dealt at too great length on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary that We should do so, both in order to meet their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories, but, as it were, in a closely connected whole, so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all…And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis of all heresies.

—Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On the Doctrine of the Modernists)

​

In fact Pius X used the term “Modernism” twenty times in this encyclical and “Modernists” many more. He also the same year caused to be published Lamentabili Sane, the famous “Syllabus of Errors” in which 65 specific errors of the Modernists were condemned and proscribed.

The only thing I see is wrong with '“Tradition” is that all people do not follow it. The Tradition of the Church is to obey the Pope. Yet it is the “Modernist” who get blasted for not kneeling.

Again, if you review the Syllabus, you will see the heresy of Modernism involves weighty theological questions, not something like the contemporary posture for receiving the Eucharist.

Nero, when hearing of the Christ’s birth…Did he say, oh no, these modern times are just out of hand.These youngsters are going to take over the world. And that is why he had them all killed.

I’m sure you meant to say Herod here, not Nero. And what he did had nothing to do with the “times”, but everything to do with one particular newborn baby.