Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

[Contarini]

Ratzinger has spent his career persecuting theologians with new ideas,

No. He was appointed to the position of prefect of the CDF in 1981, and held that position for 24 years. That’s a very significant part of his career, but not the whole of it. As prefect of the CDF, it was his job to preserve doctrinal discipline. I study the sixteenth century, a period when real persecution went on. It’s pretty hard for me to see the occasional condemnation of outspoken dissenters as persecution in any pejorative sense. My own efforts to explore Catholicism were continually complicated by the weird claims made by liberal Catholics about what Catholicism really taught. This is not true for all, by any means (Prof. Teresa Berger of Duke University is a dissenting feminist Catholic theologian for whom I have great respect). But Catholic theologians have made a claim to be a magisterium of their own–to speak authoritatively about what is and what is not authentic Catholic doctrine. That being the case, it is hardly persecution for the Vatican to say, “Sorry, that particular teaching is not in fact authentic Catholic doctrine.”

banning books, making nasty speeches about dissenters and being an impediment to progress of any kind in the church. Mighty winds of Freedom and Grace? Great Open Spaces? New Ideas? None of these exist for Benedict the 16th. He is a man imprisioned by tradition and unable to come to terms with the modern world or science.

These are sweeping and vague claims, as were mine. We clearly respond differently to Ratzinger. The only reason I’m pressing this point is that I question whether you’re actually responding to Ratzinger’s own ideas or rather to the mythical portrait of him current among liberal Catholics, based on his sometimes unpleasant actions as prefect of the CDF.

In the days of the early church there was none of the hierarchial nonsense we have today.

It was more local. But St. Ignatius would be considered by a modern liberal to be truly obsessed with “power plays.” And Pope Victor (if I remember rightly) tried to excommunicate the Asian churches in the second century over a question pertaining to the liturgical calendar. I’m pretty sure that Ratzinger would have behaved in a more restrained manner.

In later times, when the Gospels started to be written,

Oh–your idea of “later times” is after the first twenty or thirty years? Sorry–I didn’t realize your “early Church” was quite so early!

the presider (later presbyters or priests) needed to be someone who could read (most ancients didn’t)

That is debated by scholars.

and a school was established to train presiders,

There is no evidence of such schools from the time the Gospels were written.

This was the beginning of a formal clergy.

No. The offices of bishop, priest, and deacon are well attested long before the existence of any educational institutions.

The original Christians ALWAYS elected their priests, bishops, and patriarchs (later called Popes), and sat on ALL Ecumenical Councils.

True enough.

Males and feamles were equals in Christain Communities.

I can’t see much evidence for this, unfortunately.

Teachers or clergy were normally married with children and had other professions

But celibacy was highly valued, even sometimes going to the point of self-castration!

Democracy and a communal sharing of property threatened the Emperor

No doubt they would have done if he had ever heard of them!

Original gospels & histories were rewritten

What evidence for this? And don’t tell me “Dan Brown”!

The burning of libraries and closing of pagan universities plunged Europe into a dark age that took more than 1000 years to recover from.

Stereotyped and over-simplified. Rampaging German tribes helped, you know. And I’m not sure I’d call the second half of the first millenium a “Dark Age” in the Eastern Empire, although it did have its rough spots.

 

[Contarini]

Papal Claims of continuing succession from Peter are ingenuous, as there have been many anitpopes, periods without popes, bad popes and even lists of fake popes from Ebusius.

None of these invalidate the basic claim.

There have been many breaks in the line of suceesion in both Roman and Orthodox Churches.

I am not aware of any such breaks of any seriousness.

Apostolic succession comes from the only continous line of faith in existance: which is Laity. As such, in our Roman Catholic Church the relationship between Laity and Clergy is that of Employer and Employee, not Serf and Fuedal Lord.

I see. You hate what you consider “feudalism” so much that you prefer modern capitalism! You see the priesthood as a paid professional class hired by the laity to fulfill certain functions? For my money this is the worst kind of clericalism imaginable.

A Council of Laity, not the Pope or Synod of Bishops is the ultimate governing authority in the Universal Church - this was firmly established by the Council of Constance.

Well no. The Council of Constance’s decrees in that respect were not accepted by the later Catholic Church. The Council of Constance was not made up of laity. And insofar as laity were involved, they were (as you noted above when talking about Constantine) the monarchs and the aristocrats. Giving power to the laity in late medieval society usually meant giving power to the government. You need to get your story straight. Why is government domination bad when the emperor is called Constantine and bad when he is called Sigismund?

Your view of history is shaky, vague, and hopelessly tendentious. You have bought into a lot of myths and string them together uncritically (not that there isn’t some truth in them). Your picture of the early Church is hopelessly idealized.

I grew up in a house church. It was a far more repressive religious environment than anything I’ve seen in Catholicism. You do realize, don’t you, that almost the only people who are actually practicing what you preach (OK–minus the male-female equality) are fundamentalists? There’s a reason for this. Do away with clericalism and tradition and you are left with a literalistic interpretation of Scripture. Is that really what you want?

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for your thoughts. One of the problems with the Early Church Fathers is they destroyed the works of anyone who disagreed with them, and forged documents to justify their theological and political positions.

If you can’t trust the historical evidence, where do you get your picture of early Christianity from? Are you perchance admitting that it’s simply a nostalgic fantasy with no evidence?

There are lots of historians who have worked very hard, with plenty of skepticism, to reconstruct the historical picture. You might try paying some attention to them. They don’t support all the claims of conservative Catholicism, but they don’t support your claims entirely either.

Edwin

 

[catharina]

If you can’t trust the historical evidence, where do you get your picture of early Christianity from? Are you perchance admitting that it’s simply a nostalgic fantasy with no evidence?

There are lots of historians who have worked very hard, with plenty of skepticism, to reconstruct the historical picture. You might try paying some attention to them. They don’t support all the claims of conservative Catholicism, but they don’t support your claims entirely either.

Edwin

Edwin, in general, IMO, your posts are rather wonderful.

re this:
Quote:*
other poster: “The burning of libraries and closing of pagan universities plunged Europe into a dark age that took more than 1000 years to recover from.” *

you: “Stereotyped and over-simplified. Rampaging German tribes helped, you know. And I’m not sure I’d call the second half of the first millenium a “Dark Age” in the Eastern Empire, although it did have its rough spots.”

If Ireland is still part of the European eqaution then all was not lost to the Dark Ages.

Now, Edwin, if I might ask? Why aren’t you Catholic?
(Meaning, you sound quite Catholic!)

 

[skyryder]

Contarini:
Ratzinger has spent his career persecuting theologians with new ideas,

No. He was appointed to the position of prefect of the CDF in 1981, and held that position for 24 years. That’s a very significant part of his career, but not the whole of it. As prefect of the CDF, it was his job to preserve doctrinal discipline. I study the sixteenth century, a period when real persecution went on. It’s pretty hard for me to see the occasional condemnation of outspoken dissenters as persecution in any pejorative sense. My own efforts to explore Catholicism were continually complicated by the weird claims made by liberal Catholics about what Catholicism really taught. This is not true for all, by any means (Prof. Teresa Berger of Duke University is a dissenting feminist Catholic theologian for whom I have great respect). But Catholic theologians have made a claim to be a magisterium of their own–to speak authoritatively about what is and what is not authentic Catholic doctrine. That being the case, it is hardly persecution for the Vatican to say, “Sorry, that particular teaching is not in fact authentic Catholic doctrine.”

These are sweeping and vague claims, as were mine. We clearly respond differently to Ratzinger. The only reason I’m pressing this point is that I question whether you’re actually responding to Ratzinger’s own ideas or rather to the mythical portrait of him current among liberal Catholics, based on his sometimes unpleasant actions as prefect of the CDF.

It was more local. But St. Ignatius would be considered by a modern liberal to be truly obsessed with “power plays.” And Pope Victor (if I remember rightly) tried to excommunicate the Asian churches in the second century over a question pertaining to the liturgical calendar. I’m pretty sure that Ratzinger would have behaved in a more restrained manner.

Oh–your idea of “later times” is after the first twenty or thirty years? Sorry–I didn’t realize your “early Church” was quite so early!

That is debated by scholars.

There is no evidence of such schools from the time the Gospels were written.

No. The offices of bishop, priest, and deacon are well attested long before the existence of any educational institutions.

True enough.

I can’t see much evidence for this, unfortunately.

But celibacy was highly valued, even sometimes going to the point of self-castration!

No doubt they would have done if he had ever heard of them!

What evidence for this? And don’t tell me “Dan Brown”!

Stereotyped and over-simplified. Rampaging German tribes helped, you know. And I’m not sure I’d call the second half of the first millenium a “Dark Age” in the Eastern Empire, although it did have its rough spots.

Yes I have read Ratzingers Books. His most recent work on Jesus Christ offered nothing new. His books on the Liturgy were
also disappointing. There is a lack of “Outside the box thinking”.
Most of the good modern work on Christianity in the last two decades has been either written or published by Protestants due the censorship imposed by now Pope Benedict. New ideas in Catholicism have been strangled by the Conservatives. The Church will pay for these mistakes in coming cades.Ratzingers long history of banning books, excommunicating authors, bullying clergy etc. speak for themselves. THE CPFneeds to be reformed with provision for both a system of checks and balances along with Lay Oversight and Veto. The crimes of the Inquisition need to be admitted and atoned for.

Christianity needs to constantly renew itself. False ideas need to be eliminated as they are discovered (eg Ban on Women Priests) Outdated ideas (eg Original Sin) need to be rethought. New ideas such as the incorporation of new technology (eg Computer Art and Internet) into Worship need to be embraced.None of this is happening under Ratzinger.

We need to embrace Truth and follow it whereever it leads. The Church must admit mistakes, and correct its Official History where there is evidence of misinformation. Let God take care of picking up the pieces…

 

[skyryder]

If you can’t trust the historical evidence, where do you get your picture of early Christianity from? Are you perchance admitting that it’s simply a nostalgic fantasy with no evidence?

There are lots of historians who have worked very hard, with plenty of skepticism, to reconstruct the historical picture. You might try paying some attention to them. They don’t support all the claims of conservative Catholicism, but they don’t support your claims entirely either.

Edwin

Take college level classes in World Religions and Archeology which do not have an ideological bias or agenda. Again The Roman Catholic Church has been caught with its pants down and really needs to FESS UP! A good place to start might be the Evolution and Invention of the Papacy. Liberals want to embrace Truth. Conservatives want to embrace Tradition. Tradition and Truth sometimes are one and the same…but sometimes are opposite. Where there is a solid waste problem…lets toss out
the refuse.

 

[catharina]

We need to embrace Truth and follow it whereever it leads. The Church must admit mistakes, and correct its Official History where there is evidence of misinformation. Let God take care of picking up the pieces…

For any who might care, when will you be announcing the name of your “other” religion - and adding the name to your public profile? So far, all I’m getting is the idea that you have founded “skyryder’s community.” Who is the “we” that you say must do as you say in the sentences above? What “we” is that?

 

[catharina]

Take college level classes in World Religions and Archeology which do not have an ideological bias or agenda. Again The Roman Catholic Church has been caught with its pants down and really needs to FESS UP! A good place to start might be the Evolution and Invention of the Papacy. Liberals want to embrace Truth. Conservatives want to embrace Tradition. Tradition and Truth sometimes are one and the same…but sometimes are opposite. Where there is a solid waste problem…lets toss out
the refuse.

A bit fixated below the belt, are you?
A religious group with its pants down?
Toss out the solid waste?

Dude, get a clue.

 

[Roy5]

LIBERAL CATHOLICISM WILL WIN OUT

 I would rather avoid the word liberal because it can be a loaded term that attracts or repels without free discussion.

 Catholicism is at the crossroads. It can hold fast to old traditions and gradually die off because it increasingly alienates those who are well-educated and think for themselves. Or, it can make adjustments to the world as it is. This isn't compromise. It is the sort of flexibility that will keep the Church alive. Otherwise it will eventually become a relic of medievalism.

   There are some wonderful progressive forces within Catholicism. I saw Colman McCarthy the other day on C-Span. Superb and saintly man. I read Commonweal and other periodicals that speak for those within the Church who value the free mind and pay less attention to petty issues of theology - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    What needs to be done? Basically, Catholicism need to adopt a 'big-tent' approach. Who really knows and understands all the mysteries of the world? None of us. Forgive me, but not even any Pope. The Church needs to permit different viewpoints. For example, I can't believe in the traditional view of communion - transubstantiation, bread and wine becoming flesh and blood of Christ. The medieval mind had no problem with it. It also was quick to accept ghosts, witches and such. Some of the miracles attributed to Jesus and Mary are - sorry - doubtful at best. Why does the Church insist that every good Catholic accepts all these debatable doctrines?

    And the same is true re some practices. The required celibacy of priests is against the first commandment: be fruitful and multiply. Why rob healthy, normal men of healthy, normal relationships? And eventually we need to have women priests, regardless of what Benedict XVI recently stated.

    The spirit of democracy is consistent with the modern mind. The Church had better recognize this and respond with major changes or it will die. Oh, I know. Most of you are convinced that God won't let that happen. Don't be so sure. If the Church can't bring itself to make necessary adjustments God can choose other ways to do his will.

 

[catharina]

LIBERAL CATHOLICISM WILL WIN OUT

 I would rather avoid the word liberal because it can be a loaded term that attracts or repels without free discussion.

 Catholicism is at the crossroads. It can hold fast to old traditions and gradually die off because it increasingly alienates those who are well-educated and think for themselves. Or, it can make adjustments to the world as it is. This isn't compromise. It is the sort of flexibility that will keep the Church alive. Otherwise it will eventually become a relic of medievalism.

   There are some wonderful progressive forces within Catholicism. I saw Colman McCarthy the other day on C-Span. Superb and saintly man. I read Commonweal and other periodicals that speak for those within the Church who value the free mind and pay less attention to petty issues of theology - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    What needs to be done? Basically, Catholicism need to adopt a 'big-tent' approach. Who really knows and understands all the mysteries of the world? None of us. Forgive me, but not even any Pope. The Church needs to permit different viewpoints. For example, I can't believe in the traditional view of communion - transubstantiation, bread and wine becoming flesh and blood of Christ. The medieval mind had no problem with it. It also was quick to accept ghosts, witches and such. Some of the miracles attributed to Jesus and Mary are - sorry - doubtful at best. Why does the Church insist that every good Catholic accepts all these debatable doctrines?

    And the same is true re some practices. **The required celibacy of priests is against the first commandment: be fruitful and multiply**. Why rob healthy, normal men of healthy, normal relationships? And eventually we need to have women priests, regardless of what Benedict XVI recently stated.

    The spirit of democracy is consistent with the modern mind. The Church had better recognize this and respond with major changes or it will die. Oh, I know. Most of you are convinced that God won't let that happen. Don't be so sure. If the Church can't bring itself to make necessary adjustments God can choose other ways to do his will.

Huh? You received a different set of commandments from all other Christians and Jews?

The first commandment is “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.”

Why on earth should God ‘choose other ways’ based on man’s self-serving arrogance?
God wants DEMOCRACY?
The Church should bow to man, not to God?

You’re dreaming.
If I had that dream, I’d call it a nightmare.

 

[una_fides]

Take college level classes in World Religions and Archeology which do not have an ideological bias or agenda.

“Secular” classes also have an agenda. It’s called anti-religion and anti-Catholic.

Again The Roman Catholic Church has been caught with its pants down and really needs to FESS UP! A good place to start might be the Evolution and Invention of the Papacy.

Again, you demonstrate that you are not Catholic, and your hostility towards the Catholic faith seems to progress and grow with each of your posts.
So you think the Papacy was an invention? Perhaps you would think that this falls under the category of “Medieval inventions” as you also label the dogma of the Real Presence. For someone who claims to embrace truths, you have not done a lot of homework on this regard. The position of Peter and his successors is clear from the early Church fathers. I would post many quotes for you, but again you have not demonstrated any openness to anything anyone has posted on here and instead seem to be promulgating a liberal agenda to attack and destroy all that is sacred to the Catholic faith. If liberals really wanted to embrace truth, they would be Catholic. In reality, liberals reject truth in favor of their own personal anti-religious views. They reject teachings on sin and death and change Christ’s gospel message. Anything that does not fit within their agenda within Scripture they discredit and throw out.

The early Church did not “destroy” the records of all the teachings they opposed and in fact we have many records of the heresies in the early Church. None of these dissenting groups, however, could be considered the equivalent of liberal Catholicism, although they would all share in common a rejection of Tradition. The reason the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church is due to the fact that it has Tradition. If you reject Tradition, then you are not Catholic. You may be some form of protestant or other dissenting group but you cannot claim to be part of the Catholic Church when you manifestly reject her teachings.

 

[ToddM]

Thanks I needed that this morning.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

YW. Here is one (already posted I think) that you could appreciate as
well.

What do you call a dog with no legs?

Don’t matter, he ain’t comin’

 

[una_fides]

**LIBERAL CATHOLICISM IS ALREADY DEAD. **
In fact, it doesn’t even really exist. For to many, to be a “liberal Catholic” means to reject some teaching(s) of the Catholic faith, and to reject teachings of the Catholic faith is to cease to be Catholic. Thus, by the Church’s own definition, there can be no real “liberal Catholicism.”

 

[9Choirs]

LIBERAL CATHOLICISM WILL WIN OUT

 I would rather avoid the word liberal because it can be a loaded term that attracts or repels without free discussion.

 Catholicism is at the crossroads. It can hold fast to old traditions and gradually die off because it increasingly alienates those who are well-educated and think for themselves. Or, it can make adjustments to the world as it is. This isn't compromise. It is the sort of flexibility that will keep the Church alive. Otherwise it will eventually become a relic of medievalism.

   There are some wonderful progressive forces within Catholicism. I saw Colman McCarthy the other day on C-Span. Superb and saintly man. I read Commonweal and other periodicals that speak for those within the Church who value the free mind and pay less attention to petty issues of theology - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    What needs to be done? Basically, Catholicism need to adopt a 'big-tent' approach. Who really knows and understands all the mysteries of the world? None of us. Forgive me, but not even any Pope. The Church needs to permit different viewpoints. For example, I can't believe in the traditional view of communion - transubstantiation, bread and wine becoming flesh and blood of Christ. The medieval mind had no problem with it. It also was quick to accept ghosts, witches and such. Some of the miracles attributed to Jesus and Mary are - sorry - doubtful at best. Why does the Church insist that every good Catholic accepts all these debatable doctrines?

    And the same is true re some practices. The required celibacy of priests is against the first commandment: be fruitful and multiply. Why rob healthy, normal men of healthy, normal relationships? And eventually we need to have women priests, regardless of what Benedict XVI recently stated.

    The spirit of democracy is consistent with the modern mind. The Church had better recognize this and respond with major changes or it will die. Oh, I know. Most of you are convinced that God won't let that happen. Don't be so sure. If the Church can't bring itself to make necessary adjustments God can choose other ways to do his will.

LOL. And pigs may fly. This has to be one of the most comical posts I’ve viewed on this entire board as it is clear you take your opinion so seriously. Protestants such as yourself who let such poisonous diatribe freely flow from their mouths are so boring already. You all sound like a broken record repeating the same old uneducated myths.

Jesus promised that the gates of hell will never prevail against his Church- and that was 2000 years ago and the Church is still standing. I think I’ll trust in His words and not a neo Gnostic who belongs to a religion he created in the image of himself.

From your profile, I see that you are a protestant. Now how long has the man made protestant denomination you belong to existed? No more than 500 years ago. 33 thousand protestant denominations and counting…

Perhaps instead of giving a 2000 year God breathed institution tips on how to extend its life span, perhaps you need to focus on stemming the propagation of the tens of thousands of Christian denominations which are born from moral relativist mindsets such as yours. It’s funny that their lifespan isn’t that long.

For all the anti Catholics who are so critical of the Church, its interesting that you dedicate so much of your time on a Catholic board, and taking the time to construct posts as much as 143 (such as Roy5). Funnily enough, Catholics for the most part don’t spend that much time on Protestant boards trying to convince them that we belong to the true Church. Now why is that? Perhaps because we know we have the truth and Protestants such as Roy5 deep down fear that they don’t and are somehow seeking validation for their uncertainty… Some food for thought…

 

[ToddM]

By any chance, have you been kidnapped by a cult?

I won’t be joining you in your skepticism. My faith grows and grows.
I value it and I nurture it! (That’s how it works. No one need “prove” my faith.)

Skyrider is right because…?

 

[ToddM]

“Secular” classes also have an agenda. It’s called anti-religion and anti-Catholic.

Again, you demonstrate that you are not Catholic, and your hostility towards the Catholic faith seems to progress and grow with each of your posts.
So you think the Papacy was an invention? Perhaps you would think that this falls under the category of “Medieval inventions” as you also label the dogma of the Real Presence. For someone who claims to embrace truths, you have not done a lot of homework on this regard. The position of Peter and his successors is clear from the early Church fathers. I would post many quotes for you, but again you have not demonstrated any openness to anything anyone has posted on here and instead seem to be promulgating a liberal agenda to attack and destroy all that is sacred to the Catholic faith. If liberals really wanted to embrace truth, they would be Catholic. In reality, liberals reject truth in favor of their own personal anti-religious views. They reject teachings on sin and death and change Christ’s gospel message. Anything that does not fit within their agenda within Scripture they discredit and throw out.

The early Church did not “destroy” the records of all the teachings they opposed and in fact we have many records of the heresies in the early Church. None of these dissenting groups, however, could be considered the equivalent of liberal Catholicism, although they would all share in common a rejection of Tradition. The reason the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church is due to the fact that it has Tradition. If you reject Tradition, then you are not Catholic. You may be some form of protestant or other dissenting group but you cannot claim to be part of the Catholic Church when you manifestly reject her teachings.

Everything is an invention. Question is, by who?

 

[ToddM]

Everything is an invention. Question is, by who?

I claim to be a poached egg.

 

[catharina]

Skyrider is right because…?

… he says so, you ninny. Pay attention.

 

[ToddM]

… he says so, you ninny. Pay attention.

…<<<<<implies ‘complete the the thought’. ‘Good job’. People who live in ninny houses

of course, you may have been being facetious, in which case I am now actually a ninny. ' ’

 

[catharina]

…<<<<<implies ‘complete the the thought’. ‘Good job’. People who live in ninny houses

of course, you may have been being facetious, in which case I am now actually a ninny. ' ’

Hey. Dude.

I completed the thought.

Read this one.

**Skyrider is right because… he says so.
He’s the founder and sole member of a “religious” movement. **

You NINNY! Pay attention.

Better now?