Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Filius99993
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
skyryder said:
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 False ideas need to be eliminated as they are discovered (eg Ban on Women Priests) Outdated ideas (eg Original Sin) need to be rethought.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.
Click to expand...
  • “The learning of many things does not teach understanding.”* (Heraclitus) No, I don’t read Heraclitus - I saw the quote at First Things and thought it applicable here. Whatever skyryder may have learned about Catholicism in particular or Christianity in general there seems to be a pretty total lack of understanding of what they are. The belief that there are new ideas on faith or morals, that is that they could change totally as opposed to more fully develop, is a foreign concept.
We need to embrace Truth and follow it where ever it leads.
Click to expand...
I agree with this but it begs the question of how we know it when we see it. If the Church is not the final word on what constitutes Truth then there is no source outside of ourselves to settle these questions. Follow the logic of your statement and explain how Truth can come to be known.

Ender
 
Wow! I’ve seen quite a few interesting posts, and a whole lot of hatred (from both “sides”).

Someone wished for the death of the pope and I don’t care if you don’t like his politics and beliefs, he’s just another human being that no one should wish death upon.

And then someone else called the poster named Skyryder an “it”. Again, this is a HUMAN BEING! Creation of God who deserves dignity regardless of what you think of him or her.

For such an orthodox touting board, I am surprised to see such disrespect for human dignity, which, I believe is supposed to be a part of our concern for respecting life. 🤷
 
skyryder said:
I think the critical difference between Orthodox or Traditional and Progressive or Reformed Catholics, is that Liberals seek to get to the essence of faith and take the weed wacker to tradition.,ie clearing away historic rubbish, error, & twisted reasoning to access the Kingdom of God. Conservatives on the other hand get so fascinated with tradition they get lost in the maze and never find the Kingdom or go off in an entirely wrong direction.
Click to expand...
I find this statement quite interesting and revealing. In my experience, it is the fundamentalist, anti-Catholic Protestants who want to “clear away historic rubbish” and get to “the essence of faith”. One would seem hard-pressed to apply the word “liberal” to a fundamentalist.

The “Progressives” are so enamored with a “dynamic” rather than “stagnant” Church and yet they are often the first to frown upon the legitimate development of doctrine down through the centuries. It seems like a contradictory way of thinking. They’re all for change and dynamism as long as things are moving in the direction that they see fit. If things are changing and moving in a direction they don’t like, they call it “historic rubbish” that needs to be purged from the Church. 🤷

So does this mean that all “liberals” are fundamentalists at heart, or does it mean that all fundamentalists are “liberals” at heart?
 
Joe_5859 said:
I find this statement quite interesting and revealing. In my experience, it is the fundamentalist, anti-Catholic Protestants who want to “clear away historic rubbish” and get to “the essence of faith”. One would seem hard-pressed to apply the word “liberal” to a fundamentalist.

The “Progressives” are so enamored with a “dynamic” rather than “stagnant” Church and yet they are often the first to frown upon the legitimate development of doctrine down through the centuries. It seems like a contradictory way of thinking. They’re all for change and dynamism as long as things are moving in the direction that they see fit. If things are changing and moving in a direction they don’t like, they call it “historic rubbish” that needs to be purged from the Church. 🤷

So does this mean that all “liberals” are fundamentalists at heart, or does it mean that all fundamentalists are “liberals” at heart?
Click to expand...
I think both groups, liberals and fundamentalists, share one same foundational principle: rejection of any formal Church authority, which they replace with their own divisive opinions.
There is only one Lord, Jesus Christ. And he alone is the Truth. Hence the one Lord proclaims one truth to the world. There is only one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, which Christ founded as his pillar and ground of the truth, upon which he has been building for 2000 years. Let this forum be to us a building up of our faith in the Church and in the certainty we can have in her teachings because God has revealed them to us through her; the same God who can neither deceive nor be deceived.
When it comes down to it, there is no liberalism and conservatism, progressivism and traditionalism, or protestant and Catholic. There is only truth and error. We will all be held accountable for the grace we have received, grace which leads all souls to the Catholic Church.
Liberals and fundamentalists: instead of doubting and opposing the Catholic Church, why not sincerely research her claims from her own perspective rather than from others who oppose her? Read the early Church fathers and know that she was, is, and always will be the one and only Catholic Church.
 
GENERAL REMINDER

Please stop discussing each other and stay with the topic of the original post

Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

**Guidelines for posting on religious discussions

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not**. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

If the nature of an initial posting is blatantly disrespectful to any religion (e.g., “the pope is the anti-Christ” or “Rome is the Whore of Babylon” or “Muslims are terrorists”), suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
  • It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
  • It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
  • Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
  • It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
  • It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
  • It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
  • Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.
*It is our observation that discussion of such past events rarely serves a useful purpose and inevitably opens a thread to posts that violate forum rules and/or the bounds of civil discourse. So, while such threads may be useful, they raise a red flag for the Moderation staff.
 
catharina said:
  1. Inventing your own religion is a non-solution.
    There is no “Universal Christian Church.”
    What does exist is the Mystical Body of Christ.
  2. Be very clear:
    GOD IS IMPRESSED WITH NO ONE. GOD IS GOD.
  3. The future of all is in God’s hands.
    If you finally recognize that, then that’s a start.
Click to expand...
*2) God is impressed with Christians who love God and love their Neighbor. He is not an accountant who records faults. The purpose of faith is to build bridges between God and Man. It is not to separate God and Man.
*

No, we ‘record’ our own faults in committing them.
 
supersweetie said:
Wow! I’ve seen quite a few interesting posts, and a whole lot of hatred (from both “sides”).

Someone wished for the death of the pope and I don’t care if you don’t like his politics and beliefs, he’s just another human being that no one should wish death upon.

And then someone else called the poster named Skyryder an “it”. Again, this is a HUMAN BEING! Creation of God who deserves dignity regardless of what you think of him or her.

For such an orthodox touting board, I am surprised to see such disrespect for human dignity, which, I believe is supposed to be a part of our concern for respecting life. 🤷
Click to expand...
Uhhhh, I may have called someone it because…
a) Presence or absence of ‘hoo hoo’ indeterminate.
b) What do you call a thing that manipulates a HUMAN BEING into believing and then spewing utter nonsense?
 
Robert_Bay said:
GENERAL REMINDER

Please stop discussing each other and stay with the topic of the original post

Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

**Guidelines for posting on religious discussions

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not**. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

If the nature of an initial posting is blatantly disrespectful to any religion (e.g., “the pope is the anti-Christ” or “Rome is the Whore of Babylon” or “Muslims are terrorists”), suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
  • It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
  • It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
  • Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
  • It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
  • It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
  • It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
  • Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.
*It is our observation that discussion of such past events rarely serves a useful purpose and inevitably opens a thread to posts that violate forum rules and/or the bounds of civil discourse. So, while such threads may be useful, they raise a red flag for the Moderation staff.
Click to expand...
I second this.
 
supersweetie said:
Wow! I’ve seen quite a few interesting posts, and a whole lot of hatred (from both “sides”).

Someone wished for the death of the pope and I don’t care if you don’t like his politics and beliefs, he’s just another human being that no one should wish death upon.

And then someone else called the poster named Skyryder an “it”. Again, this is a HUMAN BEING! Creation of God who deserves dignity regardless of what you think of him or her.

For such an orthodox touting board, I am surprised to see such disrespect for human dignity, which, I believe is supposed to be a part of our concern for respecting life. 🤷
Click to expand...
Okay, if this is in reference to my post, at the risk of being warned again or banned, this was not meant to be an insult, it was meant to be accurate. Am I going to get in trouble again if I assume skyrider is a girl and am wrong?

You know what. bye this is already getting ridiculous. This is spinning wheels. What is being accomplished here?

Peace and out.
 
ToddM said:
What subject, the thread?
Click to expand...
“Progressive Catholicism is Alive and Well” by Todd Flowerday on 6/5/08 (off the Home page)

Estesbob:

I agree that Flowerday didn’t provide examples of what “progressive” Catholicism means to him specifically but I appreciated the article anyway, if only for its tone. I also was interested in the responses it generated (in one of them Flowerday mentioned that he has more specifics on his web site which he didn’t feel he needed to repeat). If you’re interested in more details I expect you can find them there.

On this topic we often don’t get much beyond the preliminaries before the bombs start getting lobbed back and forth (as the moderator of this thread has just warned us about) so finding an article and accompanying debate that wasn’t a war zone was pleasant in itself.

Let us know if you go to Flowerday’s web site and find anything of interest … and I’ll do the same.

Ender
 
The word “progressive” refers to progress which is generally assumed to mean positive change. It has been my experience based on reading a great deal written by progressives that their aims are entirely secular. And that their viewpoints lack any spiritual, i.e. organized religion viewpoint. None.

The Catholic Church is in the world but it is not of the world. Reducing its teachings by comparing them to current movements and concepts can and does bring secular interests into conflict with established Church teaching.

Too often, the secularists (no disrespect meant, I’m just using it in a descriptive sense) are looking to the world to give them guidance. Some do not wish to be in sincere dialogue with the Church, but only want it to conform to their viewpoint on how things should be.

When Catholic teaching is clear about contraception, sex outside of marriage, adultery and practicing homosexuals, sometimes only voices of anger are raised and demands are shouted. Doing the right thing as it applies to Church teaching is a goal, or should be a goal, of all Catholics. The fact that many Catholics use artificial birth control does not make it right or require “progress.” The fact that divorce is so high does not diminish the goal and true sacrament of marriage. No “progress” needs to apply.

On the issue of so-called “womepriests,” The Church is clear. No women. Not because the Church hates women or wishes to diminish their role in the faith.

The Church has reached out to people of all faiths in sincere dialogue. It has heard the case for many social issues when presented knowledgeably and sincerely.

It is the vocation of the theologian to examine scripture, but this is not only an intellectual excersize, it is spiritual as well. God is an actual being. He came to die for us. This is a fact. But secularists will separate this knowledge from “real world” knowledge.

We don’t pray to no one. The miracles of candidates for sainthood are meticulously investigated. The visions of Mary and the cloak on which an image of her appears, bears witness to the action of God and those he sends to us, complete with physical proofs of miraculous events.

The Catholic Church is not a philosophical movement. It was established by God and certain truths are regarded as absolute and unchanging. It believes all truth points to and comes from God. It has been enriched by writings and art and established and supported great centers of learning.

If anyone dissents, the Church will listen. If anyone decides that some rule or pronouncement of the Church is unfair, The Church will listen. But if a Catholic group thinks the Church does not have authority over them then they need to examine the reasons the Church made this pronouncement or ruling and evaluate it sincerely. If they still disagree, they are then out of communion with the Church. If they try to ordain womenpriests, they can be excommunicated.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
If anyone dissents, the Church will listen. If anyone decides that some rule or pronouncement of the Church is unfair, The Church will listen. But if a Catholic group thinks the Church does not have authority over them then they need to examine the reasons the Church made this pronouncement or ruling and evaluate it sincerely. If they still disagree, they are then out of communion with the Church. If they try to ordain womenpriests, they can be excommunicated.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
 
40.png
skyryder:
Ed you are wrong. The Blessed Virgin was the person who made Christs body in her womb, nurtured him and became his first disciple. If that isn’t a priest what it? The early church had women priests saying mass in home churches. The Greek Catholics Byzantine Rite had women priests up until the 1970s because the bab’s or grandmothers were not under the scritiny of the secret police when the church was persecuted. There are more women stigmatists than men. If God didn’t want women priests why would he give them the Stigmata.? In Ireland they had women priests eg. St Bridget both a priest and bishop and contemporary of St. Patrick. There is no biological difference scientifically between men and women. Both have breasts. Both have nearly identical reproductive organs. A man’s penis and testicles is the same as a womens vagina and overies. Hormones express themselves differently due to genetics. It is possible to manipulate hormones and turn a male into a female and vica versa. Protestant denominations have great women clergy. Catholics are wasting good talent. Give it up. The pope was not in his right mind due to Parkinson’s when he made his ban on women priests. This is teaching is historically, theologically, and scientically false. It is binding on on one.
 
skyryder said:
Ed you are wrong. The Blessed Virgin was the person who made Christs body in her womb, nurtured him and became his first disciple. If that isn’t a priest what it? The early church had women priests saying mass in home churches. The Greek Catholics Byzantine Rite had women priests up until the 1970s because the bab’s or grandmothers were not under the scritiny of the secret police when the church was persecuted. There are more women stigmatists than men. If God didn’t want women priests why would he give them the Stigmata.? In Ireland they had women priests eg. St Bridget both a priest and bishop and contemporary of St. Patrick. There is no biological difference scientifically between men and women. Both have breasts. Both have nearly identical reproductive organs. A man’s penis and testicles is the same as a womens vagina and overies. Hormones express themselves differently due to genetics. It is possible to manipulate hormones and turn a male into a female and vica versa. Protestant denominations have great women clergy. Catholics are wasting good talent. Give it up. The pope was not in his right mind due to Parkinson’s when he made his ban on women priests. This is teaching is historically, theologically, and scientically false. It is binding on on one.
Click to expand...
Skyrider, you are not only saying that Ed is wrong; you are saying that the Church is wrong and that the Pope is wrong. These are serious accusations. In addition, your historical assertions require proof. Your earlier post regarding the handling of bread at the last supper has already been clarified when we looked at the Scriptures. I would like to see your proof that there were women priests in the early Church. Do you have any early Church evidence to support such views? Furthermore, your labeling Mary, the mother of God, as a priest lacks the understanding of what a priest actually does. The essential role of a priest is to offer sacrifice. When we study the priesthood in the Old Testament, this fact becomes abundantly clear. Catholic priests offer and make present the very same sacrifice at calvary at every Mass. Another role of the priesthood is to lead the people as a ministerial priesthood. As Pope John Paul II and the rest of the fathers throughout history have affirmed, Christ appointed 12 male apostles for a reason. We have no record of anyone else being present at the Last Supper other than them, and the Church has universally upheld that only men can be priests. If you have verifiable historical sources to support your claims, I would be interested in seeing them.
 
skyryder said:
Ed you are wrong. The Blessed Virgin was the person who made Christs body in her womb, nurtured him and became his first disciple. If that isn’t a priest what it? The early church had women priests saying mass in home churches. The Greek Catholics Byzantine Rite had women priests up until the 1970s because the bab’s or grandmothers were not under the scritiny of the secret police when the church was persecuted. There are more women stigmatists than men. If God didn’t want women priests why would he give them the Stigmata.? In Ireland they had women priests eg. St Bridget both a priest and bishop and contemporary of St. Patrick. There is no biological difference scientifically between men and women. Both have breasts. Both have nearly identical reproductive organs. A man’s penis and testicles is the same as a womens vagina and overies. Hormones express themselves differently due to genetics. It is possible to manipulate hormones and turn a male into a female and vica versa. Protestant denominations have great women clergy. Catholics are wasting good talent. Give it up. The pope was not in his right mind due to Parkinson’s when he made his ban on women priests. This is teaching is historically, theologically, and scientically false. It is binding on on one.
Click to expand...
Sadly for all, especially for you, you’re now inventing things.

The Blessed Virgin “MADE” Christ’s body in her womb. Ah - what?

Women as priests? No.

The Catholic Church has no history of women priests. The Holy Father did not ban something while not in his “right mind;” rather, he repeated a teaching that has been a Church Teaching since the days of Peter. Notions about St. Brigid ‘as priest’ are ideas based in legend. Had they been based in FACT, then Patrick would have documented it, for certain. Your attempt to link stigmata to the priesthood is pathetic since the best-known stigmatist in Church History is Francis of Assisi and he was NOT a priest. Your ‘reasoning’ about this is fanciful.

If you wish to insist that there is no “biological difference scientifically between men and women” then I suggest you get yourself into an anatomy class ASAP. Or drop in at your local hospital’s Labor and Delivery suites. I won’t waste any more of my time with you. Bye.
 
SKYRYDER,

I am sincerely curious as to your beliefs on the Trinity. This topic is one that we have not discussed yet. I am curious as to what you think or believe in regards to the nature of God and particularly to Jesus Christ. Do you believe that Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity, consubstantial to the Father? or do you believe this teaching to be a made up tradition?
I know you do not believe in the Real Presence, which is a common liberal theme, but I have not heard much if anything yet as to a response on the common liberal understanding of the nature of God and particularly an acceptance or rejection of the teachings on the Trinity. Again, I am just sincerely curious as to your personal or shared opinions on this matter. Please don’t think that I am trying to attack you here in any way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top