Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Filius99993
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Filius99993 said:
I think really that compassion is a big issue in a lot of Christian churches, but not in the Catholic one. It’s not bad to be open, but we’re never going to allow for artificial birth control (catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html) or gay marriage, because, quite frankly, they are immoral. There isn’t any real gray area of morality, but only gray people. We are in fact more related to our world than probably any other institution in existence because of this. We’re simply not going to conform. Ever.
Click to expand...
In the many parishes I see, compassion at the pew level is why many come. Mass and the parish overall is social as well as spiritual. Compassion for you fellow person makes up a large part of it. Mass should not be fire and brimstone sermons based on this rule or that rule week after week after week…

Morality is a grey area when it relates to the application of the current stances. Each was decided to what it is now based on what it was at the time, yet the issues for deciding the other way have not gone away and are still there. The world has changed since the two matters you mentioned were first decided, and it is wise to revisit them again as more is known about them. It is not really a matter of “conformity” as it is relating the issues to the present day.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
No, not at all. Religion deals with sociology as it relates to people on a day to day basis. In day to day life, what is “true” is most often one or more varying shades of grey. While binary language works for the inner workings of computers, it does not translate well in humankind, which the Church is part of.
Click to expand...
Careful with that word sociology. Marx was a sociologist. It tends to classify people more or less as a biologist classifes people, and that works against the fuzzy logic I see here.
 
Scottgun said:
Did you catch the end of that liturgy? The priest blesses “In the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and the Sanctifier.” If he does that at baptisms, they are not just illicit, they are invalid.
Click to expand...
That formula more or less rules out any relationships among the persons of the Trinity. Father-Son-Spirit. IAC. are not the Spirit and son as much creator as the Father? And is not the Father also so called because of his relationship to Israel, and is not Jesus, so to speak, His firstborn among the Israelites. And is the Spirit the unifer? It leaves out too, too much.

Plus, it is just too New Agey!
 
That formula more or less rules out any relationships among the persons of the Trinity. Father-Son-Spirit.
Click to expand...
Also, it confuses who God is from all eternity with what He has done for us in time. The highest form of worship is praise, not thanksgiving; although both are excellent.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn
 
That formula more or less rules out any relationships among the persons of the Trinity. Father-Son-Spirit. IAC. are not the Spirit and son as much creator as the Father? And is not the Father also so called because of his relationship to Israel, and is not Jesus, so to speak, His firstborn among the Israelites. And is the Spirit the unifer? It leaves out too, too much.

Plus, it is just too New Agey!
Click to expand...
The CDF has explicitly rejected baptisms done with this formula: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20080201_validity-baptism_en.html
First question: Whether the Baptism conferred with the formulas «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier» and «*I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer» *is valid?

***Second question: ***
Whether the persons baptized with those formulas have to be baptized in forma absoluta?

RESPONSES

***To the ***first question: Negative.

***To the ***second question: Affirmative.
Click to expand...
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
No, not at all. Religion deals with sociology as it relates to people on a day to day basis. In day to day life, what is “true” is most often one or more varying shades of grey. While binary language works for the inner workings of computers, it does not translate well in humankind, which the Church is part of.
Click to expand...
Thankfully there are such things as absolute moral norms and permanent Divine Law (Thou shalt not kill ring a bell?) and the Church teaches them and not this gibberish, and will not.
 
I must say after being away from the church for 25 years things have changed. I came from a conservative Catholic parish in Ohio and we moved down to Florida things were different. I do wish that the liberal church would die. Coming back home has made me closer to Jesus and it pains me to see my brothers and sisters so flippant on the celebration of the mass. I’ve seen people wear camo to church and shorts like their going to the beach. Talking and clapping in the church. Heck, people don’t genuflect anymore. They bow. They take the body of Christ and pop it in their mouths has if it was a piece of candy. Only a few go to confession and I heard over 60% of Catholics believe in the Eucharist.:eek: So, if you think the liberal church is good. Show me how. As Mother Angelica would say “I’m tired of you, liberal Church in America”
Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive communion in the hand."
– Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

As reported by Fr. George Rutler in 1989 when he asked her, “What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?”
AMEN,AMEN
 
Scottgun said:
Thankfully there are such things as absolute moral norms and permanent Divine Law (Thou shalt not kill ring a bell?) and the Church teaches them and not this gibberish, and will not.
Click to expand...
Yet most things in life are not binary. Killing itself is not a good thing, yet the context with this and all things in life do need to be considered. Binary is only as good as the situation it is applied towards, which may or may not complicate things.
 
Roger_Wissinger said:
I must say after being away from the church for 25 years things have changed. I came from a conservative Catholic parish in Ohio and we moved down to Florida things were different. I do wish that the liberal church would die. Coming back home has made me closer to Jesus and it pains me to see my brothers and sisters so flippant on the celebration of the mass.
Click to expand...
Yet everyones’ spirituality source is different. The Church needs both sides, to not have it would add a sense of stagnentness. That is why both sides co-exist too create the Church we have today with a sum of beliefs and spirituality.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Yet most things in life are not binary. Killing itself is not a good thing, yet the context with this and all things in life do need to be considered. Binary is only as good as the situation it is applied towards, which may or may not complicate things.
Click to expand...
At this point I can only leave it to readers to decide who is still tethered to reality and who sounds like The Postmodern Essay Generator.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Yet most things in life are not binary. Killing itself is not a good thing, yet the context with this and all things in life do need to be considered. Binary is only as good as the situation it is applied towards, which may or may not complicate things.
Click to expand...
I think this is what Cardinal Ratzinger meant at the conclave Mass when he talked about the “dictatorship of relativism.”
 
Lepanto said:
Oh my, I just saw the “Potato Head Mass” video posted earlier. What religion was that? Or better yet, what planet?

:whacky: :nope: :whacky: :nope: :whacky: :nope:

Here’s the direct link:

ctanorcal.org./WCCTA2008.wmv

Has this been posted on Youtube?
Click to expand...
Did you notice the average age of the people attending this “liturgy”? There’s an awful lot of gray hair. That would seem to support the article in the OP that liberal catholicism is dying. If not, where are the young people?

That said, I’m still a bit pessimistic about the demise of these sorts of things. In a lot of places, I see the “liberals” doing a lot more to reach out to Catholic immigrants (particularly latino Catholics) than their “conservative” counterparts. If liberalism is going to live on past the baby boomers, it will be through these immigrants. And many sociologists are predicting that the hispanic population will soon be the majority among US Catholics.

Not that this is true across the board. I also see more “conservative” Catholics stepping up to the plate in this regard. (Scott Hahn’s St. Paul Center is working on putting a lot of their stuff out in Spanish now). I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Yet everyones’ spirituality source is different. The Church needs both sides, to not have it would add a sense of stagnentness. That is why both sides co-exist too create the Church we have today with a sum of beliefs and spirituality.
Click to expand...
If I understand you, are you talking about moral relativisms? Hey, you believe on what you believe and I believe what I believe. What spiritual source are you talking about? My source is the bible, tradition, and Christ’s church. What I see is that in the last few hundred years there’s a source trying to change the church on what they believe. And sometimes it’s not Catholic. It’s some people dancing around and wearing large puppets on their heads.
 
If one reviews church history, we normally alternate between good popes and bad popes.

Conservatives (bad popes) were Piux XII, Paul VI, & perhaps JP1. Progressives (good popes) were John XXIII and JP2.

It is my belief that Joseph Ratzinger (aka God’sRotweiler ) is one of the most oppressive conservatives since Pope Pius XII. One can only hope his reign will be short and the fall out from bad decisions, bullying and thought police tactics won’t cause too much damage!

Creativity, all inclusive love, flexible thinking and a willingness to grow and innovation are the nature of God. The historic person of Jesus was a liberal. ie One who frees. He was not a traditionist, nor a royalist, nor a comma counter. Blind adherence to tradition, conditional or limited love, pettiness, inflexibile thinking and refusal to change is the hallmark of conservatisim, rigor mortis and death. Let us worship the God of the living.

Progressives are the only hope for the church! Shame on extremeist right wing blog. This is the 21st century not the 12th. Lets get on with Liberal Revolution and embrace the Great Commission…
 
skyryder said:
If one reviews church history, we normally alternate between good popes and bad popes.

Conservatives (bad popes) were Piux XII, Paul VI, & perhaps JP1. Progressives (good popes) were John XXIII and JP2.

It is my belief that Joseph Ratzinger (aka God’sRotweiler ) is one of the most oppressive conservatives since Pope Pius XII. One can only hope his reign will be short and the fall out from bad decisions, bullying and thought police tactics won’t cause too much damage!

Creativity, all inclusive love, flexible thinking and a willingness to grow and innovation are the nature of God. The historic person of Jesus was a liberal. ie One who frees. He was not a traditionist, nor a royalist, nor a comma counter. Blind adherence to tradition, conditional or limited love, pettiness, inflexibile thinking and refusal to change is the hallmark of conservatisim, rigor mortis and death. Let us worship the God of the living.

Progressives are the only hope for the church! Shame on extremeist right wing blog. This is the 21st century not the 12th. Lets get on with Liberal Revolution and embrace the Great Commission…
Click to expand...
Well, progress is just dandy, but we don’t want to move the Church into the direction of immorality. Contraception, abortion, gay-marriages are big issues with most liberals trying to reform the Church, but that doesn’t mean that if the Church claimed them to be moral that they would.
 
skyryder said:
If one reviews church history, we normally alternate between good popes and bad popes.

Conservatives (bad popes) were Piux XII, Paul VI, & perhaps JP1. Progressives (good popes) were John XXIII and JP2.

It is my belief that Joseph Ratzinger (aka God’sRotweiler ) is one of the most oppressive conservatives since Pope Pius XII. One can only hope his reign will be short and the fall out from bad decisions, bullying and thought police tactics won’t cause too much damage!

Creativity, all inclusive love, flexible thinking and a willingness to grow and innovation are the nature of God. The historic person of Jesus was a liberal. ie One who frees. He was not a traditionist, nor a royalist, nor a comma counter. Blind adherence to tradition, conditional or limited love, pettiness, inflexibile thinking and refusal to change is the hallmark of conservatisim, rigor mortis and death. Let us worship the God of the living.

Progressives are the only hope for the church! Shame on extremeist right wing blog. This is the 21st century not the 12th. Lets get on with Liberal Revolution and embrace the Great Commission…
Click to expand...
That’s an… interesting view of recent papal history.

You seem awfully dogmatic about your liberalism. 😉
 
skyryder said:
If one reviews church history, we normally alternate between good popes and bad popes.

Conservatives (bad popes) were Piux XII, Paul VI, & perhaps JP1. Progressives (good popes) were John XXIII and JP2.

It is my belief that Joseph Ratzinger (aka God’sRotweiler ) is one of the most oppressive conservatives since Pope Pius XII. One can only hope his reign will be short and the fall out from bad decisions, bullying and thought police tactics won’t cause too much damage!

Creativity, all inclusive love, flexible thinking and a willingness to grow and innovation are the nature of God. The historic person of Jesus was a liberal. ie One who frees. He was not a traditionist, nor a royalist, nor a comma counter. Blind adherence to tradition, conditional or limited love, pettiness, inflexibile thinking and refusal to change is the hallmark of conservatisim, rigor mortis and death. Let us worship the God of the living.

Progressives are the only hope for the church! Shame on extremeist right wing blog. This is the 21st century not the 12th. Lets get on with Liberal Revolution and embrace the Great Commission…
Click to expand...
Knowledge, wisdom and enlightenment did not pour into anyone’s head the moment the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century.

If you are an extremist of any sort, you are not living in a Christ-like manner.

Labeling something progressive does make it automatically good or right. If you, or anyone, defines progress as the Catholic Church changing according to some non-Biblical ideology or political belief then it is most likely not progress or progressive. If your only purpose is to wake up in the morning looking for things to “change,” please consider the fundamental underlying truths of the institution in question.

The hope of the Catholic Church and all men is Jesus Christ through the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God.

God bless,
Ed
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Yet everyones’ spirituality source is different. The Church needs both sides, to not have it would add a sense of stagnentness. That is why both sides co-exist too create the Church we have today with a sum of beliefs and spirituality.
Click to expand...
I have a scenario on which I would like you to comment: The Church teaches definitively that sexual intercourse with a pre-pubescent child (pederasty) is gravely disordered and is thus, sinful. However, let us imagine that over the next few decades/centuries, this sort of activity becomes not only main-stream but a celebrated and venerable practice among the vast majority of humanity. It is not only celebrated, but so “natural” to contemporary society, that to not engage in this sort of behavior is seen as strange if not totally alien.

Considering/analyzing this fiction, would you (using an anthropological lens) be comfortable with the practice or would you condemn it as a “sin” or “abomination?” If the Church must change to meet people “where they are,” would it necessarily have to acknowledge pederasty as a valid form of human sexual interaction? Would it be “too traditional” if it insisted on a norm of behavior that excludes such sexual acts?

If things are as fluid as you say they are and if the Church needs to change to suit the people where they are (because social norms are always changing, right?), then wouldn’t this necessarily mean that this form of sexual behavior could possibly be acceptable? Or, does this sort of thing fall into what you might consider a universally unacceptable type of behavior?

PLEASE ASSUME THE MOST FAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS SCENARIO: CONSENSUAL, SEEN IN ALL THE POSITIVE LIGHT THAT A SOCIETY CAN GENERATE.
 
Unfortunately, it is not dead yet. Satan is still prowling about the world seeking the ruin of souls and is most active among the liberal Catholics who wish to destroy the Church of Christ by turning her into a lie and a contradiction. The Church is not and never will be a democracy, and she cannot ever change teachings she has infallibly defined. If she ever did, why would we believe anything that she would ever tell us or ever told us? It is impossible because the gates of hell cannot prevail against her… no matter how hard the liberals try.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top