I am a Moderate Catholic (or, here's a big target on my forehead)

[NewGuyInChurch]

I think that all things should be done in moderation. Except being Catholic.

 

[Steadfast]

Do you believe it is wrong to question the authority of Christ?

Thomas doubted and was corrected, that’s all I’m asking for.

I am seeking light. If I am shown that my doubts are unfounded, when my questions are answered I will be happy to leave them.

Until then, I submit entirely on every point while retaining my questions.

I am in effect saying, “You are the Church, you are old and wise, you are the specially constituted guardian of the deposit of the faith, I trust you to be right, to teach me the truth, I trust you further not to compel me where my conscience is not yet adequately formed; here is where though I remain uncompelled I will always confess with you and never against you, doing so out of filial love and loyalty.”

 

[Steadfast]

Where am I criticizing you? I say what I mean…I’m not oblique.

Do you think I’m heterodox?

 

[TorontoCatholic]

Have you read Theology of the Body?

 

[Caesar]

Thomas doubted and was corrected, that’s all I’m asking for.

I am seeking light. If I am shown that my doubts are unfounded, when my questions are answered I will be happy to leave them.

Until then, I submit entirely on every point while retaining my questions.

I am in effect saying, “You are the Church, you are old and wise, you are the specially constituted guardian of the deposit of the faith, I trust you to be right, to teach me the truth, I trust you further not to compel me where my conscience is not yet adequately formed; here is where though I remain uncompelled I will always confess with you and never against you, doing so out of filial love and loyalty.”

The doubt of St. Thomas the Apostle was not intended to be a model for people to follow. Our Lord corrected his error.

Question if you want, but only to more fully understand the holy doctrines of the Church and never to renounce them. Although, one need not understand perfectly to follow.

 

[whatevergirl]

Do you think I’m heterodox?

No, I don’t at all. Steadfast, I don’t know you at all. I know a few blurbs on a screen, I could never label you or anyone. Your statement above about seeking light is interesting though…maybe I’ll just bow out now, since it seems like I’m offending you. I’m sorry if I did.

 

[Steadfast]

Borderline heresy. The Church’s teachings do not change. These teachings were passed down from the Apostles who received them from Christ. Sounds like a protestant to me, but just my opinion. You should go talk to the Methodist. This is where you are headed. I pray that you will wake up and realize you can not be a “middle of the road” Catholic. Christ established one Church, that Church is the Catholic Church, not every Christian. This is modernist, PC talk and is far from Catholic. I came from a Southern Baptist family so I know about fundamentalist. I would not have left if everything you listed were true.

Yes, Evolution is a bunch of bunk, it is also taught as fact in our local RCIA.
Yes, Abortion is wrong
No, Protestants separated themselves from Christ’s Church and today attack and malign it.
No, Priest should not marry, per St. Pauls recommendation

As for private devotions, they are just that, private. The Rosary, though it is Praying the Birth,Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ, is only a private devotion, just like the LOTH for non religious. I personally love both and pray both whenever possible.

You have to understand the Dogmas and teachings of the Church to criticize them. You should do a little more reading before staking your soul on the position you are taking here.

Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I am a 41 year old revert having been a Jesuit candidate at one time and at another time every bit as rabid a religiopath as any of you. I have returned to the Church as to my Father’s house.

I am adequately catechized in Catholic theology and doctrine.

Your position on Protestants is significantly at odds with the spirit of Vatican 2 as we find it in Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintigratio.

Sacerdotal marriage is practiced in the eastern church and unless you’re prepared to say that the Ruthenian rite presbyters are heretical you might want to rethink your denunciation.

Anything else?

Again, anyone tell me anything I’ve said which is heretical or indicative of heterodoxy?

 

[Steadfast]

No, I don’t at all. Steadfast, I don’t know you at all. I know a few blurbs on a screen, I could never label you or anyone. Your statement above about seeking light is interesting though…maybe I’ll just bow out now, since it seems like I’m offending you. I’m sorry if I did.

NP

 

[Steadfast]

Have you read Theology of the Body?

Not yet but I have been meaning to.

 

[Genesis315]

Why is it never enough to just follow the teachings of the Church? But NOOOO, people have to question everything and personalize it…

Fast food religion–have it your way!

I read an interesting essay about anti-Catholicism in colonial and early independent America. The majority of people hated and feared Catholics because the majority thought they were so advanced to be able to think and believe whatever they wanted and to have opinions on everything and they saw Catholics as the opposite–they thought Catholics would “ruin” the great experiment in America. Instead, the great experiment has ruined a lot of Catholics…

 

[TNT]

Do you have any examples of early Christians understanding the real presence to entail a distinction between accident and essence such that the bread and wine cease to exist, only the appearances (accidents) remain even if they didn’t use the word “Transubstantiation” to describe it?

I know they all believed that they receive the True Body and Blood of Jesus in the Sacrament. But where do they distinguish this way?

Considering that at least 80% of the writings from 100-350AD are completely missing / destroyed how do you propose to assert that there was not anything near in thought to Transubstantiation?
Nevertheless, this ain’t a grand slam but it sure looks like a home run:
Cyril of Jerusalem:
Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said: “**Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. **Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, (John 6:47) not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ” . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, … partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul"(Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:,22:9).
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [AD 350]).

As far as a Moderate Catholic goes, your description of beliefs/opinions is much closer to well taught Eastern Orthodox.

In the end, I really have no problem with what you believe, as long as you don’t propose it to others as being the right way for any catholic but yourself.

 

[TorontoCatholic]

Not yet but I have been meaning to.

That will help you A LOT with sexuality. The ‘For beginners’ version is only about 120 pages. It is an easy, but very profound read.

 

[Steadfast]

Now this ain’t a grand slam but Iit sure looks likje a home run:
Cyril of Jerusalem:
Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said: “**Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. **Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, (John 6:47) not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ” . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, … partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul"(Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:,22:9).
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [AD 350]).

As far as a Moderate Catholic goes, your description of beliefs/opinions is much closer to well taught Eastern Orthodox.

TNT,

That is a really good answer but it has the usual ECF nebulousness in definition the pre-scholastics always seemed to have. It could be understood a number of ways, but I appreciate the effort and it’s a lot to think about.

Do you have any other examples? Most that I have seen don;t go much beyond placid affirmation of the RP without much consideration of the how.

The ECF’s were far more concerned with why. The scholastics took up the how.

 

[mgrobertson79]

Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I am a 41 year old revert having been a Jesuit candidate at one time and at another time every bit as rabid a religiopath as any of you. I have returned to the Church as to my Father’s house.

I am adequately catechized in Catholic theology and doctrine.

Your position on Protestants is significantly at odds with ***the spirit of Vatican 2 ***as we find it in Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintigratio.

Sacerdotal marriage is practiced in the eastern church and unless you’re prepared to say that the Ruthenian rite presbyters are heretical you might want to rethink your denunciation.

Anything else?

Again, anyone tell me anything I’ve said which is heretical or indicative of heterodoxy?

What you posted is not Catholic, sorry. You only misinterpret the council for your benefit.

 

[Caesar]

I’m going to go find a link to the Syllabus of Errors by Bl. Pius IX.

 

[Caesar]

Here we go, give it a good read and I will post some quotes in a minute- papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I am a moderate Catholic. Here are a few things I think and believe:

1. I think the dogmas of Papal Infallibility and of the Immaculate Conception of the BVM were unfortunately conceived, of extremely questionable catholicity and have created unnecessary ecumenical difficulties.
2. I think Birth-Control is a Bad Idea but I don’t think the Church should have that much to say about what a husband and his wife do in the marriage bed. I can understand the concern about and prohibition of specifically abortifacient forms of birth control but a rule against contraception (meaning the prevention of conception) seems a bit silly since it’s pretty much exactly what NFP effects, just without the introduction of a prophylactic device.
3. I think divorced and remarried Catholics, after confession and penance should be readmitted to full sacramental fellowship if only after the first divorce.

It’s a matter of attitude really.Is there anything heretical or heterodox in what I wrote?

The first assertion is only problematically expressed - it’s one thing to say that you see the merits of the arguments made by those who had historically opposed these dogmas, just so long as you recognize that those “questionable” things have been definitively settled, and that you are bound to believe those doctrines provide acceptable expressions, like the language of transubstantiation, of something that has been part of the Deposit of Faith from the get-go.

To the second, though, you contend that what a married couple does in the bedroom is their business alone. It’s unfortunate that you’ve forgotten to include God, which, by extension, would pull in those whose duty it is to faithfully proclaim what God has revealed concerning faith and morals. A “rule against contraception” can’t be silly if it’s God’s rule, and denying the evil of contraception or the distinction from NFP is, indeed, heterodox.

Also, your last quoted assertion would leave room for those currently involved in adultery to approach the sacrament, meaning you expect the Church’s discipline to expressly allow the mortally sinful to commit further mortal sin through sacrilegeous reception of the Eucharist. The Church simply can’t do this, as it would make her discipline teach error by explicitly allowing vice.

 

[mgrobertson79]

Caesar,
This is a really good read. It answers most of the questions and counters most of the statements.

 

[Caesar]

The Syllabus of Errors, by Blessed Pope Pius IX (let us pray for his canonization), condemned these following statements are erroneous and heretical:

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
2. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
3. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
4. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. – Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

…

1. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. – Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

…

1. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. – Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

 

[TNT]

TNT,

That is a really good answer but it has the usual ECF nebulousness in definition the pre-scholastics always seemed to have. It could be understood a number of ways, but I appreciate the effort and it’s a lot to think about.

Do you have any other examples? Most that I have seen don;t go much beyond placid affirmation of the RP without much consideration of the how.

The ECF’s were far more concerned with why. The scholastics took up the how.

Here’s what you posted:
Originally Posted by Steadfast forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Do you have any examples of early Christians understanding the real presence to entail a distinction between accident and essence such that the bread and wine cease to exist, only the appearances (accidents) remain **even if they didn’t use the word “Transubstantiation” to describe it?

**Now I believe you want to move the fence.
Now it’s HOW. I don’t see even the Scholastics explaining HOW, at least not to my satisfaction of that word.
Who was it that made you happy with the HOW? How bout reference…that’ll work.