I Am Sick of Liberalism in the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter shoewindow3000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shoewindow3000

Guest
I am very tired of liberals saying how the Church must change to fit “modern times.”

Here is my answer to their ridiculous complaints about the Church:

They believe that the Church should allow homosexual marriages, ordaining women, allow contraceptives, etc.

Here are my arguments against their views:

1.) Jesus Christ HIMSELF instituted the Sacraments. By what authority or power can any Bishop or Pope, who are human beings (acting under the Holy Spirit), change the Sacraments given by God? It is impossible for ANY person to change the Will of God!

2.) (Concerning why woman can’t be ordained)
On the surface it would seem sexist, but look at it this way:
If you had true faith, you would know that God calls every soul to a vocation in life. Just the fact that a person is born female should be a pretty clear indication that it is NOT God’s Will for that particular soul to be a priest! God is obviously calling you to some other vocation; otherwise, you would have been born a man.
Whatever happened to, “not my will, but Your will be done”?

3.) (Concerning why contraceptives are wrong)
SEX IS PROCREATION, NOT RECREATION!
Anything other than (which would also be LESS than) procreation within the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is SIN, which automatically includes contraceptives, homosexuality, masturbation, etc. Anything else would imply that sex is being used solely as pleasure.

Some liberals criticize the Pope for saying that handing out contraceptives to poor countries is immoral.
HERE IS WHY THOSE LIBERALS ARE WRONG IN THEIR REASONING:

First of all, only Catholics are going to even consider actually listening to the Pope, and if a particular population is actually devout enough to truly listen to the Pope and the Church’s “hard to accept” teachings concerning something like condoms, then that same group is probably listening to the REST of the Church’s teachings on sex!

I would also like to add my opinion about homosexuals. Maybe these desires are a sign from God that He is calling a soul to live a consecrated life,to take a vow of chastity, and not have a spouse. Homosexual temptations and desires themselves are not sin-it is when you ACT on them that you sin. Why? Because a sin is an act of the will-desires are not acts of the will.

(If I am wrong about anything, please feel free to correct what I have posted!)
 
This sort of stuff has been said for hundreds of years.

Don’t work yourself up over it.
 
We will hear the same tired liberal lines until we die.
When it comes to ordination of women, obviously it was God’s Will for men to be vicars of Christ, because only a man can represent Jesus.

To allow women to be priests, you would also have to allow men to be nuns. Father Angela and Sister Bruce doesn’t fit, now does it?

If you can’t instruct the stubbornly ignorant, the next best thing to do is pray for them.
 
Yes, I am very sick of the Liberalism in the Church, which is why I’m part of the SSPX. No women priests, no altar girls, not rock choirs, no priest facing the people as if he were God, no tabernacle in a separate room, no significantly altered liturgy. Just the True, Traditional Catholic Faith.
 
Musicadmirer said:
We will hear the same tired liberal lines until we die.
When it comes to ordination of women, obviously it was God’s Will for men to be vicars of Christ, because only a man can represent Jesus.

To allow women to be priests, you would also have to allow men to be nuns. Father Angela and Sister Bruce doesn’t fit, now does it?

If you can’t instruct the stubbornly ignorant, the next best thing to do is pray for them.
Click to expand...
While it is certainly true that the Church not only will not, but cannot, ordain women to the priesthood, the parallel between priests and nuns does not hold. The male equivalent to nuns or sisters would be monks or brothers (unless a particular monk is also an ordained priest.)
 
iluvburpees said:
Yes, I am very sick of the Liberalism in the Church, which is why I’m part of the SSPX. No women priests, no altar girls, not rock choirs, no priest facing the people as if he were God, no tabernacle in a separate room, no significantly altered liturgy. Just the True, Traditional Catholic Faith.
Click to expand...
The root word for protestant is protest. The SSPX is a protest against what was made the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. It is in skisim with the Church. The Prayer is that the bishops will once again accept the authority of the Pope and the Magistarium and once again be in communion with the Church.
Since there is a hope that this might happen, you may want to watch how entrenched you get.
 
FAB said:
The root word for protestant is protest. The SSPX is a protest against what was made the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. It is in skisim with the Church. The Prayer is that the bishops will once again accept the authority of the Pope and the Magistarium and once again be in communion with the Church.
Since there is a hope that this might happen, you may want to watch how entrenched you get.
Click to expand...
No offense, but since you grossly misspelled “schism,” I doubt the validity of any of this post.

We are not in schism. The New Church is in schism to the True Church, which the SSPX is part of.
 
iluvburpees said:
No offense, but since you grossly misspelled “schism,” I doubt the validity of any of this post.

We are not in schism. The New Church is in schism to the True Church, which the SSPX is part of.
Click to expand...
No offense taken, there’s no spell check, but don’t doubt the validity of the post.

I have read the writtings for the SSPX and firmly believe that the bishops who continue to lead this church are in error and have been form the begining. Of course this is not the first time in history that this has happened. Look up the Old Catholic Church, it split at the First Vatican Council, it’s founders didn’t like the idea of Papal infallibility.

So yes the SSPX is in schism with the Roman Catholic Church.
 
FAB said:
No offense taken, there’s no spell check, but don’t doubt the validity of the post.

I have read the writtings for the SSPX and firmly believe that the bishops who continue to lead this church are in error and have been form the begining. Of course this is not the first time in history that this has happened. Look up the Old Catholic Church, it split at the First Vatican Council, it’s founders didn’t like the idea of Papal infallibility.

So yes the SSPX is in schism with the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Papal infallibility happened to be a clear teaching of Christ in Matt. 16:19:

“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

So yes, denying a doctrine of Christ Himself is heresy. You fail to see, however, that the SSPX did not deny a teaching of the Church, or of Christ. Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he did. He saw the liberalism in the church, and he saw that the Latin Mass may have gone totally extinct had he not done anything. So he did what he had to do, and he has most certainly received his reward in heaven.
 
Apparently we are getting a new Priest in our parish and if he comes in and makes us hold hands and sing Kumbia then I don’t know what I’m going to do.
 
FAB said:
No offense taken, there’s no spell check, but don’t doubt the validity of the post.

I have read the writtings for the SSPX and firmly believe that the bishops who continue to lead this church are in error and have been form the begining. Of course this is not the first time in history that this has happened. Look up the Old Catholic Church, it split at the First Vatican Council, it’s founders didn’t like the idea of Papal infallibility.

So yes the SSPX is in schism with the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
TO be correct, the SSPX is in material schism (ie, they have broken from the magesterium), but they are not formally schismatics. Kind if like Protestants are material, but not formal heretics.
 
iluvburpees said:
Papal infallibility happened to be a clear teaching of Christ in Matt. 16:19:

“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

So yes, denying a doctrine of Christ Himself is heresy. You fail to see, however, that the SSPX did not deny a teaching of the Church, or of Christ. Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he did. He saw the liberalism in the church, and he saw that the Latin Mass may have gone totally extinct had he not done anything. So he did what he had to do, and he has most certainly received his reward in heaven.
Click to expand...
The definition of a heresy is to preach or teach and not to follow the doctines of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre rejected many more things than just the changes in the mass. A study of the documents of the Second Vatican Council show many more profound changes than just the mass. The mass has been the most obvious.
Ask yourself, Is the Pope in Rome in the direct line from St. Peter? If so, he holds the keys, and he is the one who binds and loosens. He sets Doctrine. By your own definition then, the SSPX is committing a heresy. If you reject the pope and his authority and teaching, then you are simply not Roman Catholic.
 
FAB said:
The definition of a heresy is to preach or teach and not to follow the doctines of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre rejected many more things than just the changes in the mass. A study of the documents of the Second Vatican Council show many more profound changes than just the mass. The mass has been the most obvious.
Ask yourself, Is the Pope in Rome in the direct line from St. Peter? If so, he holds the keys, and he is the one who binds and loosens. He sets Doctrine. By your own definition then, the SSPX is committing a heresy. If you reject the pope and his authority and teaching, then you are simply not Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
sspx.org/1988%20Consecration%20articles/1988_consecrations_theological_I.htm
 
FAB said:
The definition of a heresy is to preach or teach and not to follow the doctines of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre rejected many more things than just the changes in the mass. A study of the documents of the Second Vatican Council show many more profound changes than just the mass. The mass has been the most obvious.
Ask yourself, Is the Pope in Rome in the direct line from St. Peter? If so, he holds the keys, and he is the one who binds and loosens. He sets Doctrine. By your own definition then, the SSPX is committing a heresy. If you reject the pope and his authority and teaching, then you are simply not Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
The SSPX have built themselves a nice logical box and are quite comfortable residing in it.

Here’s how the logic goes: They adhere to the true and correct teachings of the Church, which makes them real Catholics (unlike those of us who don’t reject the OF or VII). They do not view themselves as schismatics because they claim to accept legitimate Church teaching.

The problem comes when you press them on what’s legitimate and what’s not. You see, they reserve the right to determine Truth independent of the Magisterium or the guidance of the Holy Father.

They follow the Church’s teachings (as they see it), and anything they don’t follow is obviously erroneous (according to their own theology).

Very convenient, but certainly nothing new in the history of the Church.
 
tcm22 said:
The SSPX have built themselves a nice logical box and are quite comfortable residing in it.

Here’s how the logic goes: They adhere to the true and correct teachings of the Church, which makes them real Catholics (unlike those of us who don’t reject the OF or VII). They do not view themselves as schismatics because they claim to accept legitimate Church teaching.

The problem comes when you press them on what’s legitimate and what’s not. You see, they reserve the right to determine Truth independent of the Magisterium or the guidance of the Holy Father.

They follow the Church’s teachings (as they see it), and anything they don’t follow is obviously erroneous (according to their own theology).

Very convenient, but certainly nothing new in the history of the Church.
Click to expand...
I understand thier box very well. As I wrote earlier in this thread, the hope and prayer that the SSPX leaders will reconcile differences with Rome and once again be in full communion with the Church. There are already many church’s who are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church who follow thier own traditions, but they recongized the authority of the Pope. This is a key point and from the most recent events for reconciliation, the bishops of the SSPX have a ways to go.
Peace
 
As far as I know, the Second Vatican Council promulgated no doctrine. I think it’s been used to justify experimentation in practices and changes in emphases on doctrine.

Give it another 160 years and we’ll have a better perspective.

On the SSPX: My opinion is we are better disposed towards the Orthodox than to them, yet they are nearer to us than the Orthodox in beliefs. We can go to their Masses. We can receive Communion in an emergency. I expect this internal argument which separates them from the main body of the Church will soon be resolved.

The church deals in decades and centuries. Hopefully, this episode will be titled “How Modernism Arose in the Catholic Church And How It’s Spirit Was Exorcised In Due Course” in future histories.
 
The primary error of the SSPX is failure to differentiate between practice and dogma, which is interestingly enough, the exact same error as the “liberals” they rail against. The SSPX tends to hold that since doctrine “what we believe” cannot change, then neither can practice “how we do things”. The so-called liberals think that since practice can change, then so can doactrine. Practice can, and has, change over the centuries. Dogmas have not. The Mass has changed. Cenuries ago, it was in Greek. Then it was changed to Latin, as to put it in the language of the faithful. Celibacy of the priesthood has not always been required. Agin that is a practice, not a doctrine. Abortion has always been wrong. marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Priests have always been men. These cannot change. It is that simple.
 
So; can no one think of any good things that came out of the liberal or modernest movement in the Catholic Church? Using the terms in a fairly broad sense? I know this is a traditionalist forum, but I can think of a number of positive things that came out of it - and that would suggest to me that the principles it is based on are not wholly bad.
 
Sure, practices can change. It’s just that I, and I assume the SSPX, think that recent changes have been bad for the Church and that now, because of changes in practices, Catholics think doctrines have changed or will shortly do so.

In increasingly liberal world, why should they expect the Church to be different, when so many changes have occurred in it so quickly; a big change in 1969 and significant ones afterwards?

Surely tolerance of abortion, contraception, married priests and homosexuality are just around the corner, if such sweeping changes can occur in the Roman Catholic Church’s central rite? They’ve already happened to the Protestants.

We’re all so much more tolerant now. And Jesus was tolerant, wasn’t he? We’re nice people. Hey, we have altar girls now, CITH, EMHCs, folksy hymns, kids pictures on the altar, shake hands at Mass. Yes! It’s the dawning of the Age Of Aquarius!

Note: I’m not being saracsitc here. **Just trying to explain how changes in practice can clue people into thinking doctrines have changed. And if people never hear about Sin, Hell and Damnation from the pulpit, they’ll likely never hear a contrary opinion to their living-in-sin-going-to-Confession-once-year lifestyle. **

Then it doesn’t matter what the doctrines are. They’ll be in an old catechism gathering dust in the local library. The Devil’s work is done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top