Catholic Church & the Liberals

[otjm]

Poor Mr Jim had, I’m sure, no idea what a hornet’s nest he’d disturbed by referring to heterodox beliefs and practices that have seeped into many a diocese and parish within the Catholic Church with the word “liberal”.

All he wanted to know, folks, is if he can become a Catholic when so much of the Church seems to have bowed to the heresy of modernism. The answer, as some of us have endeavored to give him amid all the haggling over terms (which is a another topic for another thread) is that yes, he can become Catholic in good faith because the Church stands no matter what some of its members embrace, even if the vast majority goes wrong, as in the case of the Arian heresy centuries ago.

If the Church weathered that, and the rise of Protestantism and all the other isms that have arisen over the last millennium, it can surely withstand modernism, secularism and every other ism man and the powers of hell can devise over the next millennium and beyond.

And while we are at it, we might want to actually define Modernism, as it gets applied with (liberl? lol) brush at anything someone doesn’t like. Many of the problems we have today are less an issue of Modernism than they are of philosophical “isms” since then, and a number of those "isms’ have nothing to do with Modernism and no connection.

 

[Allan_M]

Hi there, good luck on you’re journey to Christ, I hope you’re guided to Rome. I am a consevitive catholic, I am Scotish and for my sins living in HOLLAND, the home of the reformation. My thoughts on the liberals are: whilst accusing us of trying to live in the last centuary and resisting “change” it is the liberals who without authourity try to iniciate change from the bottom up through the Magasteriem. The truth of this matter for me is that the Roman Catholic Church is God’s expression on earth and in His teaching are many “difficult sayings” ( John; 6:54) contraception, abortion, divorce re-marriying and the sacraments, and after Vatican II many priests and religious were disapointed because they were told they could not marry (in general as some catholic pastors are married and there are some exceptions). For me and my faith cultivation I keep 1 thing in mind and that is 1 day I will be stood in front of the loving Father and I want to say “100% of the time I tried 100% and still I failed please forgive me” if I adopt a liberal attatude I would be forced to say “well I wasn’t too sure about you’re church so I led me and my family by my fallible interpretation hope you don’t mind…”

 

[otjm]

Hi there, good luck on you’re journey to Christ, I hope you’re guided to Rome. I am a consevitive catholic, I am Scotish and for my sins living in HOLLAND, the home of the reformation. My thoughts on the liberals are: whilst accusing us of trying to live in the last centuary and resisting “change” it is the liberals who without authourity try to iniciate change from the bottom up through the Magasteriem. The truth of this matter for me is that the Roman Catholic Church is God’s expression on earth and in His teaching are many “difficult sayings” ( John; 6:54) contraception, abortion, divorce re-marriying and the sacraments, and after Vatican II many priests and religious were disapointed because they were told they could not marry (in general as some catholic pastors are married and there are some exceptions). For me and my faith cultivation I keep 1 thing in mind and that is 1 day I will be stood in front of the loving Father and I want to say “100% of the time I tried 100% and still I failed please forgive me” if I adopt a liberal attatude I would be forced to say “well I wasn’t too sure about you’re church so I led me and my family by my fallible interpretation hope you don’t mind…”

While you are correct that there have been a number of things that have come from the “bottom up”, I think a survey of Church history will show that this is not a new phenomenon. That is not to suggest that everything that the “bottom” suggests or does is fitting or proper. However, there seems to be an attitude that if the Pope himself didn’t propose a change, it is therefore illegitimate, or tainted with illegitimacy.

It may well be that some changes that have come from the “bottom up” are tiems/proceedures/disciplines that some or many may not like; but there is a difference between not liking thenm, and their legitimacy.

 

[Della]

And while we are at it, we might want to actually define Modernism, as it gets applied with (liberl? lol) brush at anything someone doesn’t like. Many of the problems we have today are less an issue of Modernism than they are of philosophical “isms” since then, and a number of those "isms’ have nothing to do with Modernism and no connection.

This LAMENTABILI SANE and PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS is what I mean by modernism. And I believe that most of the problems we have in the West today are derived from this one heresy. It has weakened our faith, our purpose, and our resolve. It poisoned Vatican II for many people and led to the emptying of our convents and the lack of vocations to the ordained ministry, which we are only now beginning to recover from and which will take a couple of generations more to remedy. That’s enough harm to the Church for me to condemn it as the worst of the 20th century.

 

[rwoehmke]

This LAMENTABILI SANE and PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS is what I mean by modernism. And I believe that most of the problems we have in the West today are derived from this one heresy. It has weakened our faith, our purpose, and our resolve. It poisoned Vatican II for many people,

O.K. Della, you’ve aroused my curiosity. Do you mean it poisoned the decisions and documents of the Council or that some folks thought that it did, or…? I haven’t really made a study of either document, but have read them enough to know that one has to be very careful in how one defines some of the terms as they apply to some very specific abuses/heresies which were present at that time in the history of the Church. Some of them of course have never gone away. ****

 

[otjm]

This LAMENTABILI SANE and PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS is what I mean by modernism. And I believe that most of the problems we have in the West today are derived from this one heresy. It has weakened our faith, our purpose, and our resolve. It poisoned Vatican II for many people and led to the emptying of our convents and the lack of vocations to the ordained ministry, which we are only now beginning to recover from and which will take a couple of generations more to remedy. That’s enough harm to the Church for me to condemn it as the worst of the 20th century.

I am aware of the encyclicals. It is my point that Modernism is used as the “boogeyman in the closet” answer to any and all ills of the Church. I think there are numerous other sources of the ills in the Church, and that all too many people simply label anything that goes wrong, or goes in a direction they do not approve of, as driven by Modernism.

Modernism, which is not a clearly defined philosophical position, but more of an amalgam of a series of issues, did not arise like the phoenix out of the ashes, or out of whole cloth; the problems of that time which got lumped together were sourced from other philosophical movements at or recently prior to the time that people started enthusiastically trying to reinvent religion and theology (the issues were not confined to the Catholic Church by any means).

A whole lot of water has flowed - over, under and around the dam - since the problems arose in the late 1800’s. Lumping any and all issues that have arisen since Vatican 2 as sourced in Modernism is too often too close to a simple knee-jerk response; give a problem a label and theoretically, most of the work trying to figure out how the problem arose is now “done” and we can pull out the same responses. The difficulty is that Modernism was not a clearly defined philosophy, and calling something “modernism”
does not thereby answer how the specific problem today arose. And if you short-cut the process of figuring out how we got into a problem to begin with, you short-cut any process of defining how to deal with the problem.

If your house burned down 20 years ago, calling a flood a fire doesn’t do a lot in terms of how to deal with current or future flooding.

Note: I am not saying at all that there are not lingering issues in theological thought that can be traced back in part to the ferment that was going on in theological circles in the late 1800’s. I am saying that it it the paintbrush liberally applied by people who want simple answers to complex questions, and it frustrates me that people take mental shortcuts as if they were complete and thorough analysis.

People, for example, want to blame the ills of the Church on Vatican 2; however, the initial implementation of Vatican 2 didn’t get thrown off track by Vatican 2 or by some sort of version of Mondernism. The explosion in dissent is not traceable to V2 but is eminently traceable to the immediate, violent and widespread dissent to Humanae Vitae. And that was not sourced in Modernism.

 

[Spiller]

I think it is necessary to define our terms. What is liberal and what is conservative?

GOOD question!!

 

[Allan_M]

While you are correct that there have been a number of things that have come from the “bottom up”, I think a survey of Church history will show that this is not a new phenomenon. That is not to suggest that everything that the “bottom” suggests or does is fitting or proper. However, there seems to be an attitude that if the Pope himself didn’t propose a change, it is therefore illegitimate, or tainted with illegitimacy.

It may well be that some changes that have come from the “bottom up” are tiems/proceedures/disciplines that some or many may not like; but there is a difference between not liking thenm, and their legitimacy.

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.

 

[Spiller]

What is a liberal in your opinion?

In what context?

 

[Della]

O.K. Della, you’ve aroused my curiosity. Do you mean it poisoned the decisions and documents of the Council or that some folks thought that it did, or…? I haven’t really made a study of either document, but have read them enough to know that one has to be very careful in how one defines some of the terms as they apply to some very specific abuses/heresies which were present at that time in the history of the Church. Some of them of course have never gone away. ****

I meant just what I wrote–that modernism poisoned Vatican II for some people. The evidence for this I cited. Believe me, if I had meant to say anything more than that, I’d have said it.

 

[rwoehmke]

I meant just what I wrote–that modernism poisoned Vatican II for some people. The evidence for this I cited. Believe me, if I had meant to say anything more than that, I’d have said it.

I guess I must be slow or something because I still can read it two ways. Vatican II’s output was poisoned by some people or some people just think it was poisoned. I am not trying to be cute and usually perk up when either Della or Puzzle Annie joins a thread. Based on your reasonable past performance I would lean to the latter meaning.

 

[Spiller]

What we have, as usual, is a failure to define our terms; the result is that we have an on-going stream of comments, but too often no communication.

What or who is a liberal?

If one is ultra-orthodox, then a liberal is anyone to the left of them, including those who are orthodox.

Too often the term “liberal” means more “someone I don’t like” or “someone who takes a position I don’t like”, than it does anything else, including what may or may not fall within the definition of “orthodox”.

One of the largest problems in the Church today is that we have about two generations who have been poorly formed catchetical-wise, in the faith, and we are now starting on our third generation. All too often, those who were poorly or not at all formed in their faith are painted as liberals, when in fact they are simply sitting in the pews following along with what little they have been taught - formally, or simply by osmosis.

This labeling of “all of them” is first and foremost unfair because there is a very subtle implication that all those “liberals” were taught the truth and have rejected it. The fact is, they weren’t taught much of anything.

Labeling also has the effect of separating people into camps, and people in camps by and large don’t have much opportunity to explore and change; the very fact that they are in a camp tends to seal their “identity”.

And then there is the issue of people who simply do not like changes that have been made when they have been authorized by the Church; this results in those who are orthodox - following what the Church allows - being labeled as “liberal” when in fact they should be labeled “orthodox”. The argument ensues that the the changes were brought about by the “liberals” and therefore the orthodox position is somehow tainted - it is not really “orthodox”; i.e. orthodox becomes what I say it is, not what the Church says it is.
The net result is that most of the time, any “discussion” of issues liberal simply becomes a spleen venting.

There is a great deal of truth to what you say. I would add that many self-proclaimed “traditionalists” are also products of poor catechesis.

I would also suggest that if we start at a point of perfect orthodoxy with regard to what the Church teaches, directs and/or allows, we display dissent as we move away from that point in any direction. Move far enough away from perfect orthodoxy and all lines converge. Ponder that.

I think that’s one of the big problems with “traditionalists.” Often times they are dissenters themselves, as they feel their views are somehow “better” than what the Church actually teaches, directs and/or allows.

 

[Spiller]

I meant just what I wrote–that modernism poisoned Vatican II for some people. The evidence for this I cited. Believe me, if I had meant to say anything more than that, I’d have said it.

Do you even know what “modernism” means in the context of Church history?

I think otjm hit the nail on the head:

…It is my point that Modernism is used as the “boogeyman in the closet” answer to any and all ills of the Church. I think there are numerous other sources of the ills in the Church, and that all too many people simply label anything that goes wrong, or goes in a direction they do not approve of, as driven by Modernism.

 

[Della]

I guess I must be slow or something because I still can read it two ways. Vatican II’s output was poisoned by some people or some people just think it was poisoned. I am not trying to be cute and usually perk up when either Della or Puzzle Annie joins a thread. Based on your reasonable past performance I would lean to the latter meaning.

Thank you. That is what I meant. Sorry to be scrappy about it, but I can’t stand the ad nauseam parsing of words that is substituted for real discussion by some folks–not you, of course.

And in answer to otjm, yes modernism isn’t a closely defined philosophical position but rather a product of a long history of men substituting their own “ideas” in place of natural law and the teachings of the Church. This product is itself a jumping off point for mischief within and without the Church.

The very fact that it is so changeable is what makes it so elusive and so dangerous. It’s like fighting a huge bowl of Jello or running in water–you’ve no sooner put a hole in one spot than it closes in behind you. It’s an endless battle against something formless and spineless. It’s the jellyfish of philosophy that carries a deadly sting.

 

[ethelzguy]

I am aware of the encyclicals. It is my point that Modernism is used as the “boogeyman in the closet” answer to any and all ills of the Church. I think there are numerous other sources of the ills in the Church, and that all too many people simply label anything that goes wrong, or goes in a direction they do not approve of, as driven by Modernism.

Bingo!

:tiphat: :clapping:

 

[Cranch]

That’s horribly ignorant, but at least you have the resolve to say what you believe. Let’s break this down:

I’m guessing you don’t have a clue as to how arrogant you come across.

Pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marraige, anti-Humanae Vitae Catholics would be DISSENTING Catholics. Nothing intrinsically “liberal” (or “conservative”) about them.

What a very polite term, dissenting. And how disingenuous to suggest such views are anything but liberal.
Main Entry:1liberal
Function:adjective
Date:14th century 5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

Main Entry: 2liberal
Function:* noun*
Date:1820 : a person who is liberal: as a**:** one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c: an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights
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.

“Pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-women priest, etc” Catholics are DISSENTING Catholics. To suggest they are universally “liberal” is simply ignorant.

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.”

 

[MrJim]

Poor Mr Jim had, I’m sure, no idea what a hornet’s nest he’d disturbed by referring to heterodox beliefs and practices that have seeped into many a diocese and parish within the Catholic Church with the word “liberal”.

All he wanted to know, folks, is if he can become a Catholic when so much of the Church seems to have bowed to the heresy of modernism. The answer, as some of us have endeavored to give him amid all the haggling over terms (which is a another topic for another thread) is that yes, he can become Catholic in good faith because the Church stands no matter what some of its members embrace, even if the vast majority goes wrong, as in the case of the Arian heresy centuries ago.

If the Church weathered that, and the rise of Protestantism and all the other isms that have arisen over the last millennium, it can surely withstand modernism, secularism and every other ism man and the powers of hell can devise over the next millennium and beyond.

Very observant~yeah this thing sorta splintered off into an odd direction~but hey, I’m learning something here…

 

[PrayforMallory]

There is a great deal of truth to what you say. I would add that many self-proclaimed “traditionalists” are also products of poor catechesis.

I would also suggest that if we start at a point of perfect orthodoxy with regard to what the Church teaches, directs and/or allows, we display dissent as we move away from that point in any direction. Move far enough away from perfect orthodoxy and all lines converge. Ponder that.

I think that’s one of the big problems with “traditionalists.” Often times they are dissenters themselves, as they feel their views are somehow “better” than what the Church actually teaches, directs and/or allows.

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.

 

[otjm]

And in answer to otjm, yes modernism isn’t a closely defined philosophical position but rather a product of a long history of men substituting their own “ideas” in place of natural law and the teachings of the Church. This product is itself a jumping off point for mischief within and without the Church.

The very fact that it is so changeable is what makes it so elusive and so dangerous. It’s like fighting a huge bowl of Jello or running in water–you’ve no sooner put a hole in one spot than it closes in behind you. It’s an endless battle against something formless and spineless. It’s the jellyfish of philosophy that carries a deadly sting.

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.

 

[MrJim]

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)