Differences of Opinion

[SpiritMeadow]

I am a progressive Catholic. I know that I am in the minority here. I know most of you are conservative to very conservative. We are gonna disagree.

Actually you might be interested to know that there are more of “me” here than you might think. There is a rather lively private messaging that goes on, and many here say in message, what they admittedly won’t say publically here.

In any case, you continually act appalled and tell me the Magisterium has spoken. I’ve been warned countless times not to read any number of things about liberation and feminist theology. And I understand if you strictly follow what you understand as Church dogma, you have every right.

But I have every right to read and study and speak as well. And I have good authority for doing so. Any even casual examination of Church history suggests that there has ALWAYS been a loyal oppositiion on any number of issues. And if you keep looking, you will find, a quite goodly number of those once banned, once heretical things, now the law of the Church. It has always been that way.

You see the Church has survived low these 2000+ years by being conservative, not giving into every new idea and fad of the day. But that doesn’t mean its parishioners aren’t required to question things that seem perhaps wrong. Sometimes those parishioners will be right, many times they will be wrong. It all gets winnowed out over time. Slowly but surely the Church does move forward, after long deliberation, due consideration, and the usual kicking and screaming of a fringe who just hate change. Some of us wish it moved faster, but we are probably wrong in that.

But, we are essential to the Church, and if you stop and think about it you might agree. We work together and our Church is the result. For its mine too. So, can we re-evaluate, step back, and take a deep breath, and maybe just maybe agree to disagree on some things without labeling each other as “hopelessly lost”.

Pretty please? hehe…:clapping: :grouphug:

 

[adrift]

And if you keep looking, you will find, a quite goodly number of those once banned, once heretical things, now the law of the Church.

Would you please document this statement. What was once banned that is now law?

 

[montanaman]

There’s a lot of room under the Church’s roof for differing opinions, but the Church never has, nor can it, nor does it have the authority to, declare that X = Y, or sin = evil.

 

[bilop]

SpiritMeadow,

I think that it depends a lot on what you mean by “progressive”.

If you mean things like: 1) you want to see married men ordained to the Priesthood, 2) you prefer the Novus Ordo in the vernacular, 3) you like “folksy” hymns and minimalist Church decor etc., you are correct that there is room for a difference of opinion within the Church.

However, if you mean that you disagree with dogma or doctrine, or moral law rulings like: 1) you want the Church to allow abortion and contraception, 2) you want women “priests”, 3) you want the Church to endorse socialist economics etc., then NO.

The Church can never change on these issues without ceasing to be Christ’s Church. Any disagreement is dissent and possibly heresy, if obstinate.

I really urge you to study the Doctors of the Church and the Church Fathers. I have gained a lot of clarity and come to understand my errors in regards to Church teachings by reading them on this site and others.

God Bless

 

[iamscifimike]

There is a rather lively private messaging that goes on, and many here say in message, what they admittedly won’t say publically here.

This is unfortunate. Things should be discussed openly here after all it is a forum. Are people in their silence distancing themselves from the church?

But, we are essential to the Church, and if you stop and think about it you might agree. We work together and our Church is the result. .

If you truly believe this then the private messaging without public manifestation would seem to hamper the progressive side of the Church. Personally I believe that the disciplines of the Church are much more Spirit driven then man driven.

I’ll see your :grouphug: and raise you a :nun2:

 

[melensdad]

Actually you might be interested to know that there are more of “me” here than you might think. There is a rather lively private messaging that goes on, and many here say in message, what they admittedly won’t say publically here.

I’d bet there is a good deal of private messaging on both sides, and even crossing sides. I know that I use the PM function liberally and I am a conservative

 

[montanaman]

We work together and our Church is the result

I tend to think that ownership of the Church is Christ’s and Christ’s alone.

 

[LilyM]

Would you please document this statement. What was once banned that is now law?

More specifically what was once declared HERETICAL that is now law???

 

[montanaman]

More specifically what was once declared HERETICAL that is now law???

The writings of Teilhard de Chardin were once considered heretical, but they eventually made him a saint. Later, a pope took the name Pope Teilhard I.

Oh wait…

I’m sorry, I had reality confused with a completely engrossing series of sci-fi novels by Dan Simmons…

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve been warned countless times not to read any number of things about liberation and feminist theology.

You can certainly read them - in fact, you should read them thoroughly, and find out what, exactly, they are actually promoting behind the veneer of human rights advocacy.

For example, are you aware that liberation theology is based on Marxist philosophy? And that Marxist philosophy is predicated upon the idea that there is no God; human progress is purely a phenomenon of natural evolution (and thus, inevitable). This, of course, flies in the face of documented history, which shows us that not only do we not progress, we often move backwards. Also, not all innovation is actually progress - just because we’re different doesn’t mean we’re better.

Feminism started off as a good idea - women are certainly human beings and need to be treated that way; sexism is a sin, and the Church recognizes it as such. But certain streams of modern feminism have lost sight of these ideals, and substituted them with lesbian philosophy and good old fashioned man-bashing.

 

[manualman]

The problem with your approach is that it is inherently non-catholic. It is not ‘progressive’ catholic at all. The system you propose places the individual as the final arbiter of disputed teaching issues. This is the very root of protestantism and the end result is clearly visible in virtually EVERY protestant denomination over 4 generations old.

The catholic way of dealing with conflict issues is to admit that you have a difficulty with the issue in question. You can even admit it publicly. But you present it as a difficulty YOU have, not a deficiency in Church teaching. This is the way of the saints throughout history - even the ones that turned out to be right in their difficulties.

 

[LilyM]

The writings of Teilhard de Chardin were once considered heretical, but they eventually made him a saint. Later, a pope took the name Pope Teilhard I.

Oh wait…

I’m sorry, I had reality confused with a completely engrossing series of sci-fi novels by Dan Simmons…

I’d love to see a Pope Dan Brown I …

 

[po18guy]

Actually you might be interested to know that there are more of “me” here than you might think.

Who, Protestants? Whatever happened to obedience? Traditional, Orthodox, conservative or whatever you call them Catholics are not forcing their will upon anyone. They submit to God’s will. They have given up their former beliefs and submitted to the Lord in humility. Did Christ’s human nature “want” to suffer and die? No, but even He was obedient to the Father. You are called to be a follower of Christ, not a leader. Ego wants to lead.

There is a rather lively private messaging that goes on, and many here say in message, what they admittedly won’t say publically here.

If the Pharisees had text messaging, nearly all would have agreed that Christ was evil and had to die. Would that have made it true, or morally correct? And they were the majority.

In any case, you continually act appalled and tell me the Magisterium has spoken. I’ve been warned countless times not to read any number of things about liberation and feminist theology. And I understand if you strictly follow what you understand as Church dogma, you have every right.

In His Divine Wisdom, God granted us free will. Good vs. Evil. Light vs. Darkness. Obedience vs. disobedience. Salvation vs. damnation. Since Adam and Eve’s fall, we have known good and evil. You are here to benefit from the mistakes we have all made during our lives, many of which parallel yours. It may shock you, but we have had the same ideas. We tested them. We discarded them.

But I have every right to read and study and speak as well. And I have good authority for doing so. Any even casual examination of Church history suggests that there has ALWAYS been a loyal oppositiion on any number of issues.

Yes! Saint Jerome wanted to tear up the Canon of Scripture just like Luther did. Jerome’s difference is that he decided to remain obedient. You note there is no St. Luther…

And if you keep looking, you will find, a quite goodly number of those once banned, once heretical things, now the law of the Church. It has always been that way.

This has never included dynamiting the foundation of the church. Heresy, once infallibly determined to be such, remains heresy forever.

You see the Church has survived low these 2000+ years by being conservative, not giving into every new idea and fad of the day. But that doesn’t mean its parishioners aren’t required to question things that seem perhaps wrong.

You confuse “required” with “allowed” Big difference.

Sometimes those parishioners will be right, many times they will be wrong.

You should try either obedience, or the Episcopalian Chruch. They are beginning to believe in EVERYTHING that you like! But, join quickly…

Slowly but surely the Church does move forward, after long deliberation, due consideration, and the usual kicking and screaming of a fringe who just hate change.

Look in the mirror: It is precisely this radical worldly fringe, inspired by the evil one that is attempting, without knowing, to deconstruct the faith.

But, we are essential to the Church

Well, you certainly help cement the faith of those who accept Christ’s truth…

So, can we re-evaluate, step back, and take a deep breath, and maybe just maybe agree to disagree on some things without labeling each other as “hopelessly lost”.

You are not “hopelessly lost” until you stop breathing.

Suggested reading: Genesis 22. There is a lesson in there that applies to…all of us.

Christ’ peace, in the Spirit of obedience.

 

[mary_bobo]

I’m sorry the OP has not responded to the posts that followed his. Perhaps he is busy preaching to the choir by PM.

 

[williamdwriter]

“Progressive” isn’t progress if one is going towards a cliff.

William

 

[montanaman]

“Progressive” isn’t progress if one is going towards a cliff.

William

Unless that’s where one intends to go, of course…

I’ll never understand dissidents who want to remain in the Church while rejecting certain teachings (like the usual litany–abortion, contraception, etc…) and implicitly certain “core” teachings like the authority of the Church. I mean, it’s one thing to struggle with certain things–we all do. But to remain Catholic when you hate so much of Catholicism? I guess such a person thinks the Church HAS no divine origins, and it can be molded however a democratic majority wants. What else could it be but a loss of faith in the Church as a divinely constituted institution? It’s intellectually incoherent to believe the Church was founded by Jesus Christ but WE can flip-flop teachings however WE feel.

Somehow this message always gets lost in the civil wars between Catholics. The orthodox Catholic will say what I basically said, and he’s labeled as “intolerant,” or whatever the pop-psych phrase de jour is. Orthodox Catholics too often fire off the “heretic” accusation. It’s sad.

I say, “stick around. Struggle with us, my brothers and sisters.” But if you have any intellectual integrity whatsoever, please leave if you have no intention of struggling to understand and believe. Don’t try to change what we don’t think is broken. As if you possibly could anyway…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’ve read all the posts. You wonder why so much private messaging goes on. This is obviously why. Such meanness. Such intolerance. If one more person warns me about Liberation theology I’m gonna be sick. Where do you get off thinking you have the moral high ground? Thank God Thank God you guys are a serious minority in the Church.

NO OTHER REPLIES ARE NECESSARY. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NO OPENMINDEDNESS TO BE FOUND ON ANY LEVEL.

 

[montanaman]

I’ve read all the posts. You wonder why so much private messaging goes on. This is obviously why. Such meanness. Such intolerance. If one more person warns me about Liberation theology I’m gonna be sick. Where do you get off thinking you have the moral high ground? Thank God Thank God you guys are a serious minority in the Church.

NO OTHER REPLIES ARE NECESSARY. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NO OPENMINDEDNESS TO BE FOUND ON ANY LEVEL.

If I wanted to write satire about the ideology of the Catholic “left,” (a term I’m not sure applies when talking about religious matters…), I would use certain terms liberally (pun intended.) They would include:

“You’re mean.”

“You’re intolerant.”

“You have no right to think you’re better than me.” (Or, "moral high ground.)

“You don’t have an open mind.”

Needless to say, none of these actually address anything of substance. They’re slurs that have almost nothing to do with the topic.

Look what I wrote just before the above post:

Somehow this message always gets lost in the civil wars between Catholics. The orthodox Catholic will say what I basically said, and he’s labeled as “intolerant,” or whatever the pop-psych phrase de jour is.

See what I mean? You can’t even do satire anymore.

 

[manualman]

Spirit,

How DO you discern right from wrong? How DO you tell the truth from error? Let’s discourse.

 

[montanaman]

Is it intolerant, narrow-minded, mean or taking the moral high ground to ask for documentation of this claim?

And if you keep looking, you will find, a quite goodly number of those once banned, once heretical things, now the law of the Church.

I just reread this thread. It’s been incredibly polite considering the confrontational tone of the OP. I’d love to hear what you think justifies insulting us and our intelligence by calling us those names.