Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

[skyryder]

You know, the problem with this assertion is that if you reduce the Bible to a mere collection of symbols, then how do you know what any of it means? I see you have two choices: either you claim to have the right interpretation because you have special understanding, or you learn from your spiritual elders who have been preserved in an Apostolic line.

I think it’s important that young people learn from their elders as the ones with more experience and wisdom plan the liturgy.

Holy smokes, where in the world did you get that idea? This is a perfect example of how the Sola Scriptura folks are into the “let’s make it up as we go along” religion. From 2 Thess ch. 2:

Man oh man, it’s times like these when I am really really glad to be in the Church built on Peter.

As a Catholic Liberal I will try to address your concerns in the order given:

There is no one correct way to look at Scripture. Exegisis is looking at the Bible as a piece of literature & trying to figure it out.
The Bible was written in a Jewish manner ie parallel lines of thought. It was not written in a Western European manner. Symbolism, gematria, midrash etc are all valid ways of looking at things. The midevil elders were often wrong because they lacked information from archeology and knowlege of classic civilizations, surrounding relgions etc. In addition, scripture can be read in the light of our own life experiences. Suggest taking some Bible Study in small groups to broaden your understanding.

At the university studies have been done in how people learn. If I have someone lecturing me at best I recall 10% of what was said several days later in a test. If there are graphics, the figure goes up to around 25%. If I have the student activily involved in preparation and presentation the recall rate goes up to 90%!
Yes we want all our young people to be teachers. Suggest older students teach younger ones with supervision. This has been proven more successful than any other method. Yes you always want the young peope planning teen and college student liturgy…because you get 50% more to show up on any given date. No one has all understanding or knowlege lets have lots of guest speakers at Mass.

The Holy Spirit renews the church. The burning cathedral is a symbol in modern art of this happening. When Thomas Edison’s laboratory at Menalo Park burned down…Edison exclaimed This is wonderful. Look at all the error being eliminated. We start anew. Same can be said of Catholicism, it needs a weeding.

This idea of apostalic succession and Peter needs to be discussed. First there is no unbroken chain of apostles laying hands because a central early church never existed.It is a fiction.
Study the history of the popes and there are gaps in succession,
mythical popes created by Eubusius, antipopes., 2 or 3 popes ruling at the same time, immoral popes, heretical popes etc.
That ain’t no valid lineage. Apostalic Succesion comes from the only continous body in existance which is laity. Laity originally selected and annointed priests, it chose bishops and elected popes. Because of this all Christian Denominations are valid in the eyes of God. The phrase in scripture *Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church. * Is misunderstood.
In Green Peter is used in the diminutive form while Rock isused in the large sense. Pebbles do not equal boulders. Look up when the term Rock is used in the Bible it refers to Christ alone. The Rock is also used in the sense of being a corner stone. In classical architecture, the cornerstone was the point of true begining from which everything was measured when building a structure. It was perfectly level, perfectly at right angles, and perfectly plumb. Only God could fill this standard Peter could not
For the first 6 centures of the church there was no Papacy in the modern sense. The original church was run democratically by councils. Later under Constantine there were 5 patriarchs of equal stature in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch,Jerusalem and Alexandria. The Papacy is an invention of Leo and Gregory the Great around the time of Charlemagne. It is built on 3 famous forgeries: The Donation of Constantine, The Psuedo Iberian Decretals, and Letters of Clement. Sorry the center of Catholicism is Christ alone. The Papacy, and the Holy See could be reformed or eliminated. and we would still have a valid church as long as there is a body of believers.

Truth is made by God. Tradition is made by men. Truth does not equal Tradition.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Some years ago, there was a seminar in White Plains, New York.

One of the speakers was Karl Keating.

Another was Father Peter Stravinskas.

And someone asked Fr. Stravinskas that exact question. They asked how the war was going between the liberal Catholics and the “orthodox/conservative” Catholics.

He said that the war was over, the “orthodox/conservative” Catholics won and right now it’s just a mopping up operation.

Fr. Stravisnskas said that everytime there is a meeting of the American bishops, there is one less liberal bishop and one more of the “orthodox/conservative” bishops.

 

[skyryder]

Some years ago, there was a seminar in White Plains, New York.

One of the speakers was Karl Keating.

Another was Father Peter Stravinskas.

And someone asked Fr. Stravinskas that exact question. They asked how the war was going between the liberal Catholics and the “orthodox/conservative” Catholics.

He said that the war was over, the “orthodox/conservative” Catholics won and right now it’s just a mopping up operation.

Fr. Stravisnskas said that everytime there is a meeting of the American bishops, there is one less liberal bishop and one more of the “orthodox/conservative” bishops.

It is true that the current pope is trying to stack the deck against liberals with appointment of conservatives. The make up of upper clergy however doesn’t count. What counts is the numbers of Faithful in the pews. This month the number one topic on the Bishops Agenda is getting back all the Catholics who have left the church or are no longer attending. This amounts to around 30% loss. People are voting with their feet against the Traditionalists . The Bishops have a dilemma. If they want the get lapsed catholics back they’ve got to buck the Vatican and make an appeal to the Liberals. If they support the Vatican and keep pushing the conservative agenda the number of faithful in the pews drop. This I guess is the Holy Spirits way of reminding them to stop embracing empty tradition and listen to God’s Calling to Reform and embrace new ways to spread the Good News .Time will tell what happens.

 

[skyryder]

so true, so true. many of them probably wouldn’t even make it as protestants. what i want to know is why they claim to be Catholic at all?!

I guess the big question the traditionalists need to answer is if a Pope can over rule The Second Vatican Council. It appeart thre Reform of the Reform intends to do just that. The dream of Vatican II was the democratization of the Church and unification with the Protestant.The conservatives spent 40 years strangling the Leadership of the Holy Spirit.

Ratzinger wants to return to the days before Vatican II and has said so in this writings. Is this possible?

"There really is no turning back. “Vatican II helped us to rediscover the idea of the priesthood as something universal,” . “The faithful don’t receive permission from priests to participate in the Mass. They are members of a priestly people, which means they have the right to participate in offering the sacrifice of the Mass. This was a great discovery, a great emphasis, of the council. We have to keep this in mind, because otherwise we run the risk of confusion about the nature of the liturgy, and for that matter, the church itself.”

Archbishop Piero Marini

 

[iamrefreshed]

I think we have very different ideas of who God is. There are many levels the Bible can be read on. Religous writings are alwasys symbolic. I’ll admit I am in error when you prove you are right. So far I haven’t seen any proof. .

Lets see if there is something Liberals and Conservatives can agree on.

Suggest going to www.yaaway.com and watch a film clip called WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? It is very important for young people to be involved in planning liturgy. It is really sad that the traditionalists are outlawing the use of computer and video technology at Mass.The Vatican needs to change or it will be road kill on the super information highway. This video is the type of really wonderful material that needs to be presented every Sunday…not rote Latin Prayer or Gregorian Chant. While your at www.yaaway.com check out another clip called GOD IS A DJ. It would be cool to toss out some of the really boring readings from Ordinary Time, watch stuff like this, skip the sermon and do a public discussion. Perhaps another clip from Youtube called IF GOD HAD A MYSPACE could be used to discuss prayer. This is a lot more entertaining than fighting. There is no reason Mass can’t be a good time.

Ok iamrefreshed;3800132 What do you think of these ideas? Waiting,waiting…

Why do you change the subject?

You accused me of making things up about Crossan. In essence you called me a liar.

I proved what I satated was true with a citation.

Why don’t you just apologize to me?

Doesn’t your ‘feel good’ personal religion have room for humility?

 

[iamrefreshed]

As a Catholic Liberal.

Oxymoron

 

[iamrefreshed]

It is true that the current pope is trying to stack the deck against liberals with appointment of conservatives. The make up of upper clergy however doesn’t count. What counts is the numbers of Faithful in the pews. This month the number one topic on the Bishops Agenda is getting back all the Catholics who have left the church or are no longer attending. This amounts to around 30% loss. People are voting with their feet against the Traditionalists . The Bishops have a dilemma. If they want the get lapsed catholics back they’ve got to buck the Vatican and make an appeal to the Liberals. If they support the Vatican and keep pushing the conservative agenda the number of faithful in the pews drop. This I guess is the Holy Spirits way of reminding them to stop embracing empty tradition and listen to God’s Calling to Reform and embrace new ways to spread the Good News .Time will tell what happens.

So the numbers will drop?

So what! We should change our religion so people will attend Mass? Sorry buddy, ain’t happening.

You can always go join the rest of the Protestants in their mega-church for your ‘feel good’ celebration.

But, when you’re ready, I’m sure father will hear your confession and welcome you back.

 

[Joe_5859]

so true, so true. many of them probably wouldn’t even make it as protestants. what i want to know is why they claim to be Catholic at all?!

This question has been extensively covered in another thread (which has since been closed):

Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

One poster made the comment that, for them to actually convert to some sort of Protestantism would require that they actually take the faith seriously. I thought that was an interesting observation. I’m sure it doesn’t apply to all “liberals”, but it does apply to some.

The whole idea that a more liberal Church is the solution to dropped Mass attendance is somewhat silly. I can’t see people coming back to Mass in droves because the Church relaxes Her moral standards (which could never happen, but, for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s possible). If anything, it is the liberalism that caused the drop in Mass attendance. Why bother getting up to go to Mass on Sunday if sin is so difficult to accomplish?

 

[skyryder]

So the numbers will drop?

So what! We should change our religion so people will attend Mass? Sorry buddy, ain’t happening.

You can always go join the rest of the Protestants in their mega-church for your ‘feel good’ celebration.

But, when you’re ready, I’m sure father will hear your confession and welcome you back.

Thanks for your concern. What I keep seeing every sunday citywide in my part of the USA is lots of parishes with a sea of grey hair and few young or middle age people. Last one out please turn off the lights…or change to attract a more vital demographic.

Take a lesson from American Car Manufacturers either match the competition or go bankrupt. And YES that is exactly where the young couples are going…protestant mega churches with something called charismatic worship. Don’t see why Mass has to put people to sleep…but this Pope seems to think its his job to do so. The New Liturgical Movement is trying to turn back the clock for the 21st century to the 12th.

I don’t need to confess seeking truth. I recall something about Pride being one ot the capital sins listed by Evagrius Ponticus - the conservatives may want to think about that one.

 

[skyryder]

Why do you change the subject?

You accused me of making things up about Crossan. In essence you called me a liar.

I proved what I satated was true with a citation.

Why don’t you just apologize to me?

Doesn’t your ‘feel good’ personal religion have room for humility?

I have heard Crossan speak and read his articles. I think you are incorrect.I did not call you a liar. Crossan looks at different ways one can explain Gospel Accounts.

The problem with history is spin: where facts are twisted to serve political interests of those in power. In our own times, we cannot get a straight story out of the government on the Kennedy Assasination or the US military’s involvement in 9-11 and its coverup. So how can we get a really accurate view of what happened 2000 years ago? One can’t…so you come up with different hypothosis and test them and try to figure out what may have happened…

There are alot of similarites of the Gospel story with Pagan Mystery Cults of the Time. Portraits of Christ seem to be modeled on Greek Statues of Zeus. Some ot the events of Christ’s life seem to resemble Apollonius of Tyana. Luke’s infancy narrative is a lot like the birth of the god Ceasar. The passion reads like a Greek Tragedy one would see preformed at the Atheneum. Coincidence? No clergy member has done a reasonable job of explaining these striking similarities.
.
We have no information on who the writers of scripture were, or where they got their information from. We do know the Gospels were changed many times over the years by meddling clerics. Is it accurate? Who knows? Crossan’s premise is that the Original Jesus Message was alot like todays Liberation Theology which was perverted by Constantine when Christianity became a state relgion and one of the many tools, the rich used to stayed in power.

No apology given or required. We agree to disagree.

I sense there is no hope of compromise with traditionalists. Liberals and Conservatives need some common ground. The video clip is quite powerful. In humility: Have you watched it?
I think Christianity needs to be reframed to fit today’s socieity.
This is a great attempt to do so.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I have heard Crossan speak and read his articles. I think you are incorrect.I did not call you a liar. Crossan looks at different ways one can explain Gospel Accounts.

No apology given or required. We agree to disagree.

I sense there is no hope of compromise with traditionalists. Liberals and Conservatives need some common ground. The video clip is quite powerful. In humility: Have you watched it?
I think Christianity needs to be reframed to fit today’s socieity.
This is a great attempt to do so.

From someone who refuses to accept that they were in error and accused another of a lie your advice on what to watch falls on deaf ears.

I generally ignore those whose hats are made of what I wrap my leftovers in.

 

[Arnobius]

I guess the big question the traditionalists need to answer is if a Pope can over rule The Second Vatican Council. It appeart thre Reform of the Reform intends to do just that. The dream of Vatican II was the democratization of the Church and unification with the Protestant.The conservatives spent 40 years strangling the Leadership of the Holy Spirit.

Kindly show us which Vatican II document said this please?

Because it seems to me your interpretation is nothing more than the “Spirit of Vatican II” error that has nothing to do with the reality of Vatican II.

Ratzinger wants to return to the days before Vatican II and has said so in this writings. Is this possible?

Ratzinger was a periti (advisor) to Cardinal Frings in Vatican II. He was present there and played a major role in the formation One would think he has a much greater understanding of what the Council does than those who were not.

Pope John Paul II, as Bishop played a major role in the drafting of Gaudem et spes.

Cardinal Arinze was present at Vatican II as a bishop.

Funny how their interpretations of the Council don’t match yours. I would give them far more credibility than I would you.

"There really is no turning back. “Vatican II helped us to rediscover the idea of the priesthood as something universal,” . “The faithful don’t receive permission from priests to participate in the Mass. They are members of a priestly people, which means they have the right to participate in offering the sacrifice of the Mass. This was a great discovery, a great emphasis, of the council. We have to keep this in mind, because otherwise we run the risk of confusion about the nature of the liturgy, and for that matter, the church itself.”

Archbishop Piero Marini

By whose interpretation of “universal priesthood”? Certainly not the interpretation of Lumen Gentium… which speaks of bearing witness to the world, not making their own rules.

Of course Marini was not even ordained until 1965, so I suspect he knows substantially less than the Holy Father on the subject.

 

[Steeltemplar]

I guess the big question the traditionalists need to answer is if a Pope can over rule The Second Vatican Council. It appeart thre Reform of the Reform intends to do just that. The dream of Vatican II was the democratization of the Church and unification with the Protestant.The conservatives spent 40 years strangling the Leadership of the Holy Spirit.

Have you actually read the documents of the Second Vatican Council? I am thinking that you have not, or at least not well. If you had then you would know that what you say here is completely false. Vatican II did not seek to democratize the Church. Indeed, it is firmly connected with all of the Church’s teachings before it.

As for “unification” with the Protestants, how would that even be possible when the Protestants are not unified themselves?

Regardless, the only ecumenism which the Second Vatican Council supports is that which leads others to enter the Catholic Church in full obedience to its teachings. The Council documents recognize the faith of Protestants and our kinship with them as Christians, but do not embrace their false beliefs.

Ratzinger wants to return to the days before Vatican II and has said so in this writings. Is this possible?

On the contrary, Ratzinger sees the time after the Council and before it as being one continuum. He does not see an interruption. Rather, a single and united Church through the ages - one which does not change with fashions.

"There really is no turning back. “Vatican II helped us to rediscover the idea of the priesthood as something universal,” . “The faithful don’t receive permission from priests to participate in the Mass. They are members of a priestly people, which means they have the right to participate in offering the sacrifice of the Mass. This was a great discovery, a great emphasis, of the council. We have to keep this in mind, because otherwise we run the risk of confusion about the nature of the liturgy, and for that matter, the church itself.”

Archbishop Piero Marini

I do not think that you understand properly what Marini is saying here. He is not saying that the Church is a democracy now. Also, he is not saying that we are all Priests. Nor is he saying that anything doctrinal has changed because of Vatican II. Rather he is speaking of a new understanding for the faithful, who before were not as involved in the liturgy.

Prior to Vatican II, there were some difficulties with the understanding the faithful had of their role in Mass. Some people would say their rosary during Mass, for instance. Some people would still only rarely received the Eucharist even though they were in a state of grace. In short, they did not see themselves as participant in the event of the Holy Sacrifice. The Second Vatican Council corrected that problem and, through changing to the vernacular, it also made it so that the laity could more easily understand what was happening.

Nonetheless, the Priest is still the Priest. And the Pope is still the Pope, with the authority he has always had. None of that changed in Vatican II and you will not find even one document which indicates otherwise.

The idea of the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” is nothing but a lie made up by progressives who wanted the Council to be something it wasn’t. But the thing about lies is that they don’t stand up very well in the face of truth. And thankfully, Papa Benedict is all about the truth.

 

[PerryJ]

I wouldn’t let the liberals steal the word progressive. The Catholic Curch is progressive. A world based on unconditional love and compassion is progressive. How is supporting the murder of millions of babies progressive? Barbaric yes. Progressive no.

 

[edwest2]

“progressive” has been perverted to mean change, especially ‘change with the times,’ which generally refers to secular attitudes. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

A long-standing commitment to the sanctity of life from conception to natural death is what the Church promotes, regardless of how the society at large is. It can be said that the present culture in America is regressive. It has regressed from living according to sound Biblical principles and even natural law in some cases. Too often, however, this is what is meant by the word ‘progressive’ today.

God bless,
Ed

 

[una_fides]

I guess the big question the traditionalists need to answer is if a Pope can over rule The Second Vatican Council. It appeart thre Reform of the Reform intends to do just that. The dream of Vatican II was the democratization of the Church and unification with the Protestant.The conservatives spent 40 years strangling the Leadership of the Holy Spirit. …

By chance, have you ever read the 2nd Vatican Council??? I find that most who call themselves “liberal Catholics” attribute many things to V2 that the Council neither said nor intended. They tend to qualify their statements by saying “in the spirit of V2”… the Church no longer teaches x,y,&z. To you and all of them, I ask if you have ever read Lumen Gentium #25? It upholds under special circumstances the infallibility of the bishops of the Catholic Church (not the laity!) and specifically of the Pope. The Church cannot both be infallible and in error for 2000 years.

V2 also never mentions any authority of the laity, changing in teachings on morality, or uniting with Protestants in perfect communion, which is an impossibility! If you read Pope JP2’s documents on ecumenism (especially when read in light of earlier Church teachings), you will find that the goal of ecumenism is evangelization and to win others to the Catholic faith so that we can all be united in unity of teaching and receive in unity the Body of Christ in the Eucharist.

Your historical revisions attribute teachings to the early Church that never existed. The early Church clearly taught and understood the absolute authority of the bishops–NOT THE LAITY. If you have not studied the early Church fathers on this matter, then you must read them before continuing to spread this nonsense.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, ~AD 107
“You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop.”

 

[skyryder]

By chance, have you ever read the 2nd Vatican Council??? I find that most who call themselves “liberal Catholics” attribute many things to V2 that the Council neither said nor intended.

Your historical revisions attribute teachings to the early Church that never existed. The early Church clearly taught and understood the absolute authority of the bishops–NOT THE LAITY. If you have not studied the early Church fathers on this matter, then you must read them before continuing to spread this nonsense.

Suggest reading The Church is a Democracy by Daniel C. Maguire, Marquette University quoted below:

"No real reform of the Catholic Church is possible—in areas of clergy sexual abuse or elsewhere—unless two false “truisms” are corrected. These regnant falsities, perceived not only as facts, but as binding norms, are: “the Church is not a democracy” and, the implied converse, “the Church is a monarchy, governed by papal and episcopal monarchs.” Nothing is intelligible outside of its history, said Teilhard de Chardin, and that holds for this monarchical deviation that paralyzes the contemporary Roman Catholic Church.

Jesus addressed governance he said: “You know that in the world the recognized rulers lord it over their subjects, and their great men make them feel the weight of authority. This is not the way with you; among you, whoever wants to be great must be your servant, and whoever wants to be the first must be the willing slave of all.” (Mark 10:42-43) C.H. Dodd thinks that this thought was for Jesus “fundamental to the whole idea of the divine commonwealth.” It was the way government should function in any moral society.

Most Catholic theologians today are scandalously timid in reimagining the new forms the church should be taking today. For at least a century after Jesus the idea of a monarchical bishop in charge of a diocese was not the norm. The early church knew its freedom in the Spirit and did not shy from helpful adaptation. The list of ministries in 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12 and Ephesians 4 all vary without apology. When they saw need for changes they changed. They knew there was no blueprint handed down from heaven. In the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 20 the terms episcopos, which came to be “bishop”) and the term presbyter (which came to be priest)seem to be used interchangeably. In 1 Peter 2, the whole church is described a “priestly.” Indeed the term priest is still open to change and adaptation. here is wide consensus among reputable New Testament scholars that there were no Christian priests in New Testament times and therefore certainly none ordained or appointed by Jesus. The priesthood does not emerge in the early church until the end of the first century at the earliest and, even at that relatively late date, the evidence is scanty and unclear."
The papacy was an invention of Gregory the Great some 500 years later. It did not exist in the early church and is a fiction created by Constantine.In all the writings of early Greek Fathers there is no mention of a Pope,nor was the bishio of Rome given any special status.

Yes the church is a democracy. Paul had some relevant advice regarding the spiritual democracy that the church should be: “In each of us the Spirit is manifested in one particular way, for some useful purpose.” (I Cor. 12: 7) "

Traditionalists need to update their views to square with facts.

THE POPE CANNOT BE INFALLIBLE THIS IS RESERVED SOLELY FOR GOD. Claims of Papal Infallibility were rejected several early ecumenical councils. It as also rejected by Innocent XI and John XXII. Vatican I never had quarom to vote on infallibility thus such dogma is false.

A lie repeated over and over is still a lie. Christ never founded a Monarchial Church, nor an infallible leadership. This is the work of politicians inventing ways to grab power and enrich themselves.

 

[skyryder]

I wouldn’t let the liberals steal the word progressive. The Catholic Curch is progressive.

The Catholic Church is not progressive (ie looking towards the future but rather regressive looking backwards at the past.

One of the best definitions of progressive Christianty is given by Bishop John Sprong in his book: FUTURE CHURCH.
Suggest reading it.

 

[una_fides]

Skyryder,

Judging from your last comments, I take it your answer is no that you have not read Vatican II or the early church fathers. It’s a shame you take the opinions of protestants as “experts” and reject the teachings of the Catholic Church as fabricated tradition. The problem is that you refuse to look at all the evidence in favor of the authority of the Church and instead side with the views of Protestants who oppose Catholic teaching and theology.

 

[una_fides]

Skyryder:

Again you are saying that Church councils or that popes have taught certain things and are not providing the sources, but instead you like to quote from and cite modern liberal sources for your arguments and support. I suggest actually reading and studying the early church fathers and Scripture independent of the many liberal documents you have put forth that are infected with dogmas that the Church has repeatedly condemned as heresy.

You say that the bishop of Rome did not have authority over other Churches until the office of Pope was somehow fabricated by Constantine. Read these articles:
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801eaw.asp
catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9702eaw.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904fea2.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9706eaw.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9810fea3.asp

Here are a few quotes from Scripture that might also be of some help:
TRADITION:
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
2Ti 1:13 Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 1:14 Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us.
Church fathers on Tradition: catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY:
Act 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 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 on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Lastly, if you want to know what the early Church taught, stop reading liberal fictions and read the early Church fathers: catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp