Dissenting Catholics in America

[maisua]

TobyLue–

<<I fail to see how these people can call themselves Catholic, present themselves to communion, and say they practice ABC, go to mass whenever they “feel” like it, and they pick and choose which teachings to abide by.>>

There is so much more to Catholic required belief than is implied or stated in the Nicene Creed.

Is it time to amend the Creed? After all, there is not much liturgical difference between Lutherans, Catholics & Episcopalians, but seemingly huge differences in beliefs 'beyond Credo."

 

[heliumspark]

maisua:

Is it time to amend the Creed? After all, there is not much liturgical difference between Lutherans, Catholics & Episcopalians, but seemingly huge differences in beliefs 'beyond Credo."

 

[heliumspark]

maisua:

Is it time to amend the Creed? After all, there is not much liturgical difference between Lutherans, Catholics & Episcopalians, but seemingly huge differences in beliefs 'beyond Credo."

Oops.

You mean, like “We believe in the real presence” and “We reject the evils of birth control”? It’s a long shot… but maybe that’s what it takes.

Or maybe a simple, “We believe in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church, and that all her teachings are absolutely true”

Hmmm…

 

[Tietjen]

AmberDale:

Are those types of Catholics what they call ‘Cafeteria Catholics’ ?

Yes, those that pick and choose the truths that they wish to accept are “cafeteria Catholics.” An older term, but one, which I believe applies, is Heretics. It is a sad thing to be sure. Yet, the Church will endure and we do not need to fear about it. Christ said so in Matthew 16:18. Then in John 14:16 Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would be with us (His Church) always. So, as I read some of these posts and I see the anger and fear, I fail to understand the reason why. Yes, there are dissenting people in the Church. There has always been dissenters (remember Luther and how Protestantism came about). In the 4th century the Church had to deal with Arianism (the denial of Christ’s Divinity) infiltrating the pews. During the 5th century, the Church was hit from within by Eutychianism and Monophysitism, yet it survived. It is a never-ending battle but God knows this. Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church; He did not say that it would not try.

Matt25:

Now it so happens JPII was quite conservative, so wake up, America.

This is another area where I get confused. Pope John Paul II shouldn’t be labeled either conservative or liberal. He was simply FAITHFUL. So many people want to affiliate great men with political labels. Why? Truth is truth and someone that recognizes and proclaims truth is faithful to truth. Conservatism and/or liberalism have nothing to do with it. Some would say the there are many “conservatives” who reject Vatican II. Some would say too that there are many “liberals” who reject Church teaching against the ordination of women. Let us save the political labels for politics and instead simply say that Pope John Paul II was a faithful man to both God and His Church.
God bless.

 

[HagiaSophia]

YinYangMom:

Now it so happens JPII was quite conservative, so wake up, America. You would not dare approach Christ to tell him to ‘lighten up’ in His message to us, so how DARE you ask the same of Christ on earth - our Pope?!

Actually JPII ws elected as a “moderate” – it is simply that the left has moved so far left in the past 25 years, now they paint him as a conservative. He stayed consistent from beginning to end – it’s them that did the moving.

 

[Matt25]

HagiaSophia:

Actually JPII ws elected as a “moderate” – it is simply that the left has moved so far left in the past 25 years, now they paint him as a conservative. He stayed consistent from beginning to end – it’s them that did the moving.

In what ways have left wing opinion changed in the past 25 years?

 

[maisua]

<<Or maybe a simple, "We believe in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church, and that all her teachings are absolutely true">>

That would certainly be a step in the right direction.

I find remarkable that at the central liturgical practice of the community, the profession of faith omits so many points of doctrine that must be accepted by faithful Roman Catholics.

 

[flameburns623]

Matt25:

In what ways have left wing opinion changed in the past 25 years?

If I may hazard some responses:

1. The homosexual movement has become far more bold and aggressive.
2. Sexuality in general has jaded the culture so that virtually no act can be ultimately defined as sinful, inside or outside of marital relations. Remember that at least one of the pedophile priests (sorry to raise a sensitive topic) actually militated for the legalization of sexual relations between adults and minors.
3. Women have become more assertive in insisting upon their ‘rights’ as well–including the ‘right’ to hold the priesthood.
4. Considerable jockeying for the ‘right’ to suggest and/or support positions which are clearly heretical from WITHIN the Church continues.
5. Groups outside the Catholic Church–including large numbers of the popular media–have allied themselves with pressure groups and dissenters within Catholicism to pressure the Church in desired directions. Their favorite tactic being to pretend themselves to be the ‘majority’, with the cnservatives and traditionalists being a tiny but powerful clique which is opposing the will of the greater number of their flock.

By the way–there is indeed something called ‘conservative’ Catholicism, something else known as ‘traditionalist’ or ‘traditional’ Catholicism, a third group known as ‘liberal’ or ‘reformist’ Catholics, and somewhere betwixt and between these groups yet another known as ‘moderates’. The terms ‘conservative’, ‘traditional’, ‘moderate’, ‘liberal’, etcetera, are NOT political terms but measures against a standard, usually against what has ordinarily been practices or believed over some long period of time. Obviously, for those who are ideologically committed to some part of the polar extremes, even a moderate might be seen as either a ‘liberal’ or as a ‘conservative’. But the terms are meannful nonetheless, unless one simply likes to quibble with language.

Traditionalists would want zero deviation, or at least an extremely slow and imperceptible deviation, from such practices. Conservatives would tend on balance to prefer the fewest possible changes, but acknowledge some degree of change is inevitable. Liberals tend on-balance to believe that change is good and needful, and that every generation needs in some sense to re-invent itself. Moderates tend to borrow at times from the conservative playbook and sometimes from the liberal playbook.

John Paul II was, on-balance, a conservative who resisted most changes. Because he was not a traditionalist, he tolerated some changes and indeed instigated some. But, as a conservative he made change only in a measured and highly considered way. My take on the fellow. Condolences to all Roman Catholics upon his passing by the way: I grieve with you all.

 

[YinYangMom]

Scott Waddell:

Man there a lot of wingnuts commin’ out from under the rocks. They act as if JPII personally invented the teachings on sexuality, the priesthood, etc. I other words, they act like it is personal policy like the U.S. President or something.

Scott

No, he didn’t invent the teachings on these matters…but he did write about them extensively and he made those writings publicly available so more people can here directly from him what the position of the church is.

As a cradle catholic I am still angry at how misled I was by relying on my training solely from nuns and priest and bishops of a particular geographic region (political slant).

Thanks to this pope I have a much clearer understanding of the Church’s position on matters which are very basic and critical to our spiritual development. As a parent I was scrambling to find Catholic sources of information to help me properly instruct my children in the faith - I took that part of the marriage vows quite seriously - to raise my children Catholic…not just hand them over to the local parish to be exposed to that group’s particular interpretation of Catholic teaching.

Had JPII not put so many of his reflections and positions in writing they would have been heard only by those in his presence at the time…and those lessons would have been watered down or twisted around by the time they reached the U.S…or they would have died along with him. This way, we catholics can no longer claim ignorance on matters of the faith. We are obliged to seek the truth. JPII presented the truth for all people around the world. For that alone, he is great, imo.

 

[YinYangMom]

SamCA:

You might be surprised.

(What’s more, judging by Christ’s reaction to Thomas, I have a feeling that if someone questioned one of His positions, He’d probably be pretty cool about it.)

I suspect he’d be pretty cool about it too, but he wouldn’t change his position, either. What people don’t get is that these matters aren’t really ‘positions’ at all. It is Truth. God’s Truth. What’s to negotiate??? We are invited to embrace/follow the truth. Some can, some can’t. I think it pleases God that so many at least try.

 

[Genesis315]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamCA
*You might be surprised. *

(What’s more, judging by Christ’s reaction to Thomas, I have a feeling that if someone questioned one of His positions, He’d probably be pretty cool about it.)

Yep, and when doubting Thomas didn’t believe Christ was resurrected Christ just said, “Oh, ok, actually I never rose from the dead. Is that ok with you Thomas? Because it’s your opinion that matters here, not what really happened.”:whacky:

Actually, He was so cool most of the time when his positions were questioned, He’d just let the dissenters walk away (see John 6).

 

[YinYangMom]

Matt25:

Depends what you mean by Conservative. He was the first Pope to enter a mosque. The first since Peter to enter a synagogue. The first to call an interfaith gathering like the Assisi meetings for peace. He was against the Death Penalty. He was against unfettered Free Market Capitalism. He opposed both Wars against Iraq and the Sanctions regime. He supported the cancellation of the debts of the worlds most highly indebted countries.

The Church of Christ is neither Conservative or Liberal. It is radical, it challenges everyone, everyone to change. Faithful to his Royal Master John Paul challenged each of us to look deep within ourselves. If John Paul did nothing but comfort you and stroke your prejudices (I don’t mean this personally YingYangMom this is a collective you) then you really weren’t paying attention to his words and the exampleof his life.

I stand corrected, thanks. By U.S. Catholic opinion, he was considered conservative. Personally, I’ve only considered him as Christ on earth.

Reading his work opened my eyes to so much. It helped me see that I was trained in the faith by liberal practicioners. It helped me see that there is a definite conservative group of practitioners doing the same disservice to the followers as my liberal group did to me. And I thank God that JPII was selected to help me see there is only God’s will, and to make that will available to me unfiltered. I embrace his work as Christ’s and treasure the closeness I have experienced to Christ through JPIIs work. I no longer see the Church’s positions on matters of the faith as liberal or conservative. They just are as God has revealed it to them. We can accept or reject Christ. It’s always up to us. But we cannot change Him.

 

[YinYangMom]

Tietjen:

Yes, those that pick and choose the truths that they wish to accept are “cafeteria Catholics.” An older term, but one, which I believe applies, is Heretics. It is a sad thing to be sure. Yet, the Church will endure and we do not need to fear about it. Christ said so in Matthew 16:18. Then in John 14:16 Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would be with us (His Church) always. So, as I read some of these posts and I see the anger and fear, I fail to understand the reason why. Yes, there are dissenting people in the Church. There has always been dissenters (remember Luther and how Protestantism came about). In the 4th century the Church had to deal with Arianism (the denial of Christ’s Divinity) infiltrating the pews. During the 5th century, the Church was hit from within by Eutychianism and Monophysitism, yet it survived. It is a never-ending battle but God knows this. Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church; He did not say that it would not try.

This is another area where I get confused. Pope John Paul II shouldn’t be labeled either conservative or liberal. He was simply FAITHFUL. So many people want to affiliate great men with political labels. Why? Truth is truth and someone that recognizes and proclaims truth is faithful to truth. Conservatism and/or liberalism have nothing to do with it. Some would say the there are many “conservatives” who reject Vatican II. Some would say too that there are many “liberals” who reject Church teaching against the ordination of women. Let us save the political labels for politics and instead simply say that Pope John Paul II was a faithful man to both God and His Church.
God bless.

Well said, and again, I thank you for the clarification.

I guess I’m not really angered by the U.S. Catholics who are calling for reform in the Church as much as I am dismayed and saddened. If only they would spend half the energy they do railing against these ‘practices’ actually researching where they came from and why we hold them to be valuable…

 

[heliumspark]

Well, what is it that the dissenters want with this new Pope, anyway? If they want to be more democratic, why don’t they elect their own Pope, and those of us who believe what the Church teaches is true can keep following the real Pope. Why do they need the Pope that they didn’t vote for to legitimize their dissent?

During the American Revolution, Congress did not wait for King George to grant them democracy. It would have been ridiculous. And it is ridiculous that people who believe a church should be democratic should try to force the least democratic church to change when there are so many churches out there that will give them exactly what they want to believe.

 

[Tietjen]

heliumspark:

Well, what is it that the dissenters want with this new Pope, anyway? If they want to be more democratic, why don’t they elect their own Pope, and those of us who believe what the Church teaches is true can keep following the real Pope. Why do they need the Pope that they didn’t vote for to legitimize their dissent?

During the American Revolution, Congress did not wait for King George to grant them democracy. It would have been ridiculous. And it is ridiculous that people who believe a church should be democratic should try to force the least democratic church to change when there are so many churches out there that will give them exactly what they want to believe.

The ultimate goal of the devil is to destroy THIS Church (the Catholic Church). Using his tools (dissenters being one of them) he would rather see the Church compromised and fall completely than simply have some leave and start their own church or join an exsisting church. He has already split apart many Christians from the true Church, yet the Catholic Church still stands. Another tactic is needed if he is to win. That tactic being to cause the Church to fall from grace which is exactly what it would do if the dissenters have there way and succeed in making the Church a democracy. However, we are assured in the Bible that God will not abandon His Church and that the Holy Spirit will remain with the Church until the end of time. Therefore, the Church is guaranteed to persevere and we do not need to be afraid of this happening.
God bless.

 

[Maccabees]

buzzcut:

There was a survey a few years back.

religioustolerance.org/rcc_poll.htm

54% of U.S. Catholics would let priests marry

61% of U.S. Catholics say artificial birth control is not immoral

62% of U.S. Catholics would like more democracy

However …

… I’ve also seen a survey that says 70% of U.S. Catholics do not attend Mass regularly

… yet they would be entitled to partcipate in these surveys.

Exactly! That is the point I have pointed to in other threads that these polls are worthless as they talk any Joe who claims to be catholic. I talk to people who haven’t been to mas in 20 years and they call themselves catholic.
I would really a poll of the 30 percent of Catholics that attend church regularly and not just those who attend church in the Blue states. How about a mix of demograpics here blue and red states young and old of regularly church goers.

 

[caroljm36]

AmberDale:

I’m new…meaning I was just baptized but when I heard CNN, questioning a priest about changing doctrine to for Americans I was so mad. He said something about America being so different, so things should be different.

Yes I saw that too. WHY does he think we’re so “different”? That’s all in his head. We’re not that different, not really. If he’s talking sexual mores, which is usually what it’s about, well the “sexual revolution” has been going on in other parts of the world too and they are in various states of decadence. E.g. I was hearing about abortion-as-birth-control in Soviet states over 30 years ago, long before it became the MO here. And look at Holland & Belgium…have mercy. if he means Third World, then it’s kind of patronizing–they’re not “advanced” enough so they must pay obeisence to the Church-as-it-is?

To think we’re so different that we deserve a different Church is the height of arrogance IMO.

 

[Tietjen]

caroljm36:

Yes I saw that too. WHY does he think we’re so “different”? That’s all in his head. We’re not that different, not really. If he’s talking sexual mores, which is usually what it’s about, well the “sexual revolution” has been going on in other parts of the world too and they are in various states of decadence. E.g. I was hearing about abortion-as-birth-control in Soviet states over 30 years ago, long before it became the MO here. And look at Holland & Belgium…have mercy. if he means Third World, then it’s kind of patronizing–they’re not “advanced” enough so they must pay obeisence to the Church-as-it-is?
To think we’re so different that we deserve a different Church is the height of arrogance IMO.

I agree. Truth doesn’t change depending on what soil one is standing on. The idea that the Church should apply different things to different countries goes against the very essence of Catholicism (UNIVERSAL).
God bless.