Italian writer stirs a hornet’s nest with doubts about Pope Francis

[FollowChrist34]

Matt Fradd of Catholic Answers says in his talk “How to Win an Argument Without Losing a Soul” that if you could provide just one instance in history where the Church changed its teaching, that would prove that it isn’t infallible, and he would leave the Church. I would do the same. Because if the Church changes its teaching, doesn’t that mean it’s not infallible? Why belong to a Church that isn’t what Jesus started? Because I think it’s clear from Church teaching that Jesus started an infallible Church. What do you think of that argument? No, because my family isn’t infallible. The true Church is. If the Church changes its teaching, it isn’t infallible, and therefore is not the true Church. If that’s wrong, what am I missing? Have you considered this counter-argument? The Church Jesus started is infallible. If the Catholic Church changes its teaching, then it isn’t infallible. Therefore, the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ established if it can change its teachings. There – how do you answer that argument? How can it change if the Church is infallible? I think it’s more likely than that. One reason why is, Pope Francis has already explicitly said he will keep the discipline the same and that the doctrine won’t change. “About the problem of Communion to those persons in a second union, that the divorced might participate in Communion, there is no problem. When they are in a second union, they can’t. I believe that it is necessary to keep this within the entirety of pastoral care of marriage.” source

So I gather you do NOT believe that the proposal to change doctrine OR pastoral practice to allow the divorced and remarried to receive communion will be accepted, correct?

I was watching Raymond Arroyo the other night on World Over. His prediction for the new year was that Pope Francis WOULD change doctrine in this regard. I was a bit surprised by that because I thought the proposal was more or less dead after the 1st Synod, where it went nowhere and overshadowed so many other important, much more far-reaching problems facing the Church today. I respect Arroyo and EWTN though, and it made me start to think that there is a chance it could happen.

There have been bad popes. There have been heresies declared by Popes (Arianism). Granted, these errors have been corrected. But I don’t think the Pope is infallible based on a number of previous examples in history.

To be honest all this fuss has made me question my Catholicism, not so much my Christianity. Is this what Jesus died on the cross for? This argument? Would Jesus want my faith and my salvation to hang on this argument, whether divorced and remarried Catholics can take communion? I am coming at this from a very different angle than you.

 

[LongingSoul]

Matt Fradd of Catholic Answers says in his talk “How to Win an Argument Without Losing a Soul” that if you could provide just one instance in history where the Church changed its teaching, that would prove that it isn’t infallible, and he would leave the Church. I would do the same. Because if the Church changes its teaching, doesn’t that mean it’s not infallible? Why belong to a Church that isn’t what Jesus started? Because I think it’s clear from Church teaching that Jesus started an infallible Church. What do you think of that argument? No, because my family isn’t infallible. The true Church is. If the Church changes its teaching, it isn’t infallible, and therefore is not the true Church. If that’s wrong, what am I missing? Have you considered this counter-argument? The Church Jesus started is infallible. If the Catholic Church changes its teaching, then it isn’t infallible. Therefore, the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ established if it can change its teachings. There – how do you answer that argument? How can it change if the Church is infallible? I think it’s more likely than that. One reason why is, Pope Francis has already explicitly said he will keep the discipline the same and that the doctrine won’t change. “About the problem of Communion to those persons in a second union, that the divorced might participate in Communion, there is no problem. When they are in a second union, they can’t. I believe that it is necessary to keep this within the entirety of pastoral care of marriage.” source

So clearly and well said! There seems to be a sentiment that goes ‘well if the Catholic Church fails, I will still follow Jesus!’. But how? When you know of the Church, how can you unknow it and follow something else? If I had to make a counter statement from raw faith… I would have to say ‘if the Catholic Church fails, I will go down with it because of Jesus promise’. But of course that is just an argument for the sake of the ‘hypothetical’ game we are playing. In my heart of hearts I don’t even consider that the Catholic Church will fail us.

 

[PTL]

dmar198, You have a valid point about the Church’s infallibility. I have no answer. I also believe and hope there is more than 60% of chance the doctrine won’t be changed. It is rather sad that our estimation is not 100%. Who would have thought there is even this speculation? When JPII and Benedict 16 was the Pope, no one even has the slightest doubt in this direction. The fact such speculation appears is very sad.

There are cardinals and priests want the gay sex be acknowledged, but there are many good cardinals, bishops and priests stick to the truth. Cardinal Burke and Bishop Chaput for example. Let us pray for the good priests and bishops. May God help them to help the Church so we may never have to face the split of the Church and crisis of faith for many.

 

[PTL]

**Originally by FollowChrist34 *I was watching Raymond Arroyo the other night on World Over. His prediction for the new year was that Pope Francis WOULD change doctrine in this regard. I was a bit surprised by that because I thought the proposal was more or less dead after the 1st Synod, where it went nowhere and overshadowed so many other important, much more far-reaching problems facing the Church today. I respect Arroyo and EWTN though, and it made me start to think that there is a chance it could happen.

I have not watched EWTN lately, but I agree that EWTN is very solid in her view. One thing is clear to me: this pope is in the process of changing doctrine. It is not clear what he would change this October. Chances are he will change the doctrine of divorced and re-married first by loosing the annulment process, by issuing some formality to grant them Eucharist. It is hard to imagine the pope will just announces “all is OK “ without any formality. But again, the pope has already said God is a God of surprise.

The problem is once the changing door is open for divorced, gay “marriage” could easily follow, especially if it is the pope’s intention. The more scary thing is anything could go afterwards. Once we can call sin of breaking marriage bond no longer sin, we can also call any other sin not a sin. In the name of tolerance and love, sex with animal will be fine too, followed by any other imaginable evilness.

 

[dmar198]

So I gather you do NOT believe that the proposal to change doctrine OR pastoral practice to allow the divorced and remarried to receive communion will be accepted, correct?

Correct. I do not believe any doctrine will change because (1) that seems incompatible with Jesus’ promise to preserve His Church from error and (2) the pope has said he cannot change on this. And I do not believe the pastoral practice will change because #2 can be repeated: the pope has said he will not and must not change it, by saying it is “necessary” that the pastoral practice be kept, and that’s his word.

I was watching Raymond Arroyo the other night on World Over. His prediction for the new year was that Pope Francis WOULD change doctrine in this regard.

That’s not what I heard. I heard him say that he expects Pope Francis to change the discipline, and that a fierce debate would follow as to whether that constitutes a change in doctrine. As evidence, he said that Pope Francis has indicated numerous times that he will change the discipline, and specifically cited a homily from shortly before Christmas. Well, I’ve already cited sources where Pope Francis explicitly stated that he thinks it is necessary to keep the present discipline, and I can’t imagine why he would say it is necessary to keep it if he thinks it’s even possible to discard it.

As to the places where he has supposedly indicated that he wants to change the discipline, I would like anybody to cite just one source.

I looked through Pope Francis’ statements from shortly before Christmas to find what Arroyo was referring to, and the closest thing I found was this statement from December 10 where the pope speaks of the Synod and says “No intervention called into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of Marriage, namely: indissolubility, unity, fidelity and openness to life. This was not touched.”

I think that’s what Arroyo was referring to, and I think Arroyo interprets that as a subtle defense of the so-called Kasper Proposal. For myself, I don’t think the pope was referring to the Kasper proposal, and even if he was, the pope did not say in that quote that any discipline should be changed, he just says that changing a discipline is not the same as changing Church teaching. That gives no indication on whether he thinks the discipline about the divorced and remarried should be changed. A much better indication is the fact that he explicitly said the current discipline must be kept, that it is necessary to keep it.

There have been bad popes. There have been heresies declared by Popes (Arianism).

Which pope declared Arianism?

I think that any pope who wanted to declare a false doctrine true would drop dead on the spot before he could declare it. I think that’s basically what happened to Pope Sixtus V and Pope Clement VIII when the former tried to declare a translation of the Bible infallible (and suddenly died just before proclaiming it) and when the latter tried to declare the theology of Domingo Banez a part of the deposit of faith (and again suddenly died right beforehand).

If Pope Francis wanted to change Church doctrine, which I completely doubt because he has said he will not and must not change either the doctrine or the discipline, but if he tried to change the doctrine, I think he would drop dead before he could.

If for reasons beyond my comprehension he switched from saying it is necessary to keep the current discipline to changing it in favor of a version that contradicts Catholic teaching, I think that would mean promulgating a discipline that contradicts Catholic doctrine, but I don’t think that would constitute a change in doctrine.

Again, I don’t think he will do that because he has explicitly stated that it is necessary to keep the current discipline. But if the discipline changed to allow remarried people to receive the Sacraments without an annulment, I think that would be a sinful discipline that contradicts Catholic doctrine, but not a change in doctrine.

And I think it is possible to have a discipline in the Church that contradicts Catholic doctrine without changing it, which is perhaps similar to what happened when Pope Clement V ordered the use of torture against the Order of the Temple. His predecessor Pope St. Nicholas the Great had declared torture to be against the laws of God; but Catholic doctrine didn’t seem to stop a pope from issuing a policy that contradicted it. Again, I don’t think Pope Francis will do anything similar to that, because he has said he must not change on this point, that it is necessary not to.

 

[dmar198]

To be honest all this fuss has made me question my Catholicism, not so much my Christianity. Is this what Jesus died on the cross for? This argument?

No, and I don’t think he died for any argument, even doctrinal ones. He died for our sins, and then men come along and argue about it.

But it should not make you question your Catholicism, which is to doubt the promise of Jesus. Did he found one Church with one pope? Did he say the gates of hell would never prevail against this Church with one pope? Is there any other church that can trace its origin to that promise and to that pope? No. Therefore if Jesus is true, the Catholic Church is true.

There are thieves and wolves who sow doubt in your mind, and in this case I think it is the media. How many times does the pope have to say not to listen to the Media before people will believe that the Media is lying? If the pope was trying to make people think that changing doctrine is okay, why would he tell people that the media gets him wrong? All they say is that the pope is trying to change doctrine and that this is a good thing. If the pope wanted us to have that impression, don’t you think he would say “Yeah, listen to the media,” rather than telling us not to?

dmar198, You have a valid point about the Church’s infallibility. I have no answer. I also believe and hope there is more than 60% of chance the doctrine won’t be changed. It is rather sad that our estimation is not 100%.

For me, it is a 100% estimation. The pope cannot change doctrine, he would drop dead before he could, as I showed above. Since the pope has explicitly stated that he cannot change on this point, there is even less reason to believe he will.

Who would have thought there is even this speculation? When JPII and Benedict 16 was the Pope, no one even has the slightest doubt in this direction. The fact such speculation appears is very sad.

When Paul VI was pope, people thought the Church would change on contraception. When Pope Vigilius was pope, people thought the Church would change on Monophysitism. But God protected His Church, in Vigilius’ case by miraculously converting him to Catholicism and away from Monophysitism at the same time that he became pope. God will continue to protect His Church because God will be true to His promise though every man be a liar. “If we are faithless, He will still remain faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.”

If people would stop listening to the Media, like the pope says to do, they wouldn’t speculate that the pope will change Church doctrine. He has said nothing but pure orthodoxy. He has explicitly pronounced his commitment to Catholic tradition. The pope is a traditionalist, not a modernist. The Media has taken his good meat and churned out poison, and too many people are swallowing it.

There are cardinals and priests want the gay sex be acknowledged, but there are many good cardinals, bishops and priests stick to the truth.

And the gates of hell will not prevail.

Cardinal Burke and Bishop Chaput for example.

And Pope Francis. He has made just as strong statements against changing the discipline as they have.

Let us pray for the good priests and bishops.

And the bad ones.

 

[PTL]

Great faith, dmar198! I hope so too.

 

[dmar198]

Great faith, dmar198! I hope so too.

I made this thread partly for you, PTL:

12 Ways Pope Francis is Pro-Tradition, Against Modernism

I hope you like it, and I hope it reassures you.

 

[PTL]

dmar198, thanks for the link. I have read some of them before. Yes, the pope has said he “is the son of the Church”. We just have to keep on praying for the pope and wait for October in patience.

 

[FollowChrist34]

No, and I don’t think he died for any argument, even doctrinal ones. He died for our sins, and then men come along and argue about it.

But it should not make you question your Catholicism, which is to doubt the promise of Jesus. Did he found one Church with one pope? Did he say the gates of hell would never prevail against this Church with one pope? Is there any other church that can trace its origin to that promise and to that pope? No. Therefore if Jesus is true, the Catholic Church is true.

There are thieves and wolves who sow doubt in your mind, and in this case I think it is the media. How many times does the pope have to say not to listen to the Media before people will believe that the Media is lying? If the pope was trying to make people think that changing doctrine is okay, why would he tell people that the media gets him wrong? All they say is that the pope is trying to change doctrine and that this is a good thing. If the pope wanted us to have that impression, don’t you think he would say “Yeah, listen to the media,” rather than telling us not to? For me, it is a 100% estimation. The pope cannot change doctrine, he would drop dead before he could, as I showed above. Since the pope has explicitly stated that he cannot change on this point, there is even less reason to believe he will. When Paul VI was pope, people thought the Church would change on contraception. When Pope Vigilius was pope, people thought the Church would change on Monophysitism. But God protected His Church, in Vigilius’ case by miraculously converting him to Catholicism and away from Monophysitism at the same time that he became pope. God will continue to protect His Church because God will be true to His promise though every man be a liar. “If we are faithless, He will still remain faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.”

If people would stop listening to the Media, like the pope says to do, they wouldn’t speculate that the pope will change Church doctrine. He has said nothing but pure orthodoxy. He has explicitly pronounced his commitment to Catholic tradition. The pope is a traditionalist, not a modernist. The Media has taken his good meat and churned out poison, and too many people are swallowing it. And the gates of hell will not prevail. And Pope Francis. He has made just as strong statements against changing the discipline as they have. And the bad ones.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I admire your faith and commitment to the Church; I hope you are right and I am wrong. For better or worse, my faith leans more toward the cautious, Athanasius approach: keep your eye out for wolves, for they can appear anywhere. At the same time, I am rather surprised to find myself growing more and more in respect and sympathy toward Pope Francis as pope these days. But I still recognize he is a liberal at least in the political, possibly even social sense of the word. It’s prudent to keep that in the back of your mind; there is ample evidence he was open to Kasper’s proposal and it is absurd to see anything other than his support behind the center stage it was granted at the last Synod. I can even see Kasper’s point about the harshness of the current doctrine/discipline. But the price we will pay for such a proposed change (in doctrine or discipline) would be too high, for reasons I have stated above and on many other threads on this topic for months now. We need better, less extravagant ways to fix these issues. I think Francis will come to the same conclusion, but I am not sure of that. As for my Catholicism, I’ll hang in there as long as the Catholic Church stands by Scripture. I believe all Christians are in the Church and in God’s heart (well, all men are in God’s heart, right?). For that matter all Christians are Catholics, whether they know it or not. I’ll leave the contradictions and errors of that to be sorted out and explained to me by the armchair CAF theologians (hopefully however, it’s such an incoherent mess of contradictions they’ll just throw up their hands and move on to another victim… ).

 

[PTL]

It’s prudent to keep that in the back of your mind; there is ample evidence he was open to Kasper’s proposal and it is absurd to see anything other than his support behind the center stage it was granted at the last Synod.

That:thumbsup:

The pope has said many many things, sometimes this, sometimes that, it is confusing to say the least and I think he purposely made it that way so you cannot be sure if he is pointing to this or that direction. We just have to wait and see. And prayers for the pope and all the clergy is as important as death.

 

[Tigg]

As for my Catholicism, I’ll hang in there as long as the Catholic Church stands by Scripture.

To Catholics, Sacred Tradition plus Scripture make up a* single *sacred deposit of the Word of God,

 

[otjm]

I think he is wrong for advocating greater state control of economies. I think he is wrong for wading into the AGW debate on the side of the left wing alarmists. I think he is wrong for criticizing capitalism, which has pulled more people out of poverty than any other system.

I think he is right that we need to focus on Jesus and to speak boldly about our faith.

I like Pope Francis, but he makes me cringe occasionally.

For starters about economics, the Pope is not originally from the United States; his life experience is in Argentina, which has had its own severe economic issues.

And for that matter, the United States has a long history of state control of economics; and one needs look no further than the issue of monopolies. Rampant, unfettered capitalism has many dangers, and while different from extreme socialism or Communism dangers, is no less worthy of a calling to attention in the moral realm.

For that matter, both Benedict 16 and Paul 6 made clear comments about the damage unfettered capitalism can produce.

And if one is truly paying any real attention, more and more middle class are being pushed into lower class economically in the US.

 

[otjm]

But I still recognize he is a liberal at least in the political, possibly even social sense of the word.

You might come across as a liberal if your country had been run by the wild political swings which Argentina has come through in the last 150 years.

It amazes me that people take a figure (sh-uch as the Pope) and make judgement about him as if he were an American with American influencing his background and upbringing.

Keep in mind also that the Church is fairly “liberal” when it comes to human rights and our responsibilities to one another.

 

[dmar198]

Keep in mind also that the Church is fairly “liberal” when it comes to human rights and our responsibilities to one another.

What do you mean by “liberal”? I think human rights and responsibilities are very traditional, because I think they are taught in Sacred Tradition.

I also don’t think there is any evidence that Pope Francis is a “social liberal,” if by that one means a supporter of such things as abortion, same-sex “marriage,” contraception, divorce, and recreational drug use. I also don’t think there is any evidence that he is a “political liberal,” if by that one means he believes in giving the State control of economic production.

I think all the available evidence suggests that Pope Francis sticks as closely to Sacred Tradition as Pope Benedict XVI or St. Thomas Aquinas, including an insistence on the right of individuals to control their own property and a belief that the State should discourage anything that the faith calls sinful.

 

[otjm]

What do you mean by “liberal”? I think human rights and responsibilities are very traditional, because I think they are taught in Sacred Tradition.

I also don’t think there is any evidence that Pope Francis is a “social liberal,” if by that one means a supporter of such things as abortion, same-sex “marriage,” contraception, divorce, and recreational drug use. I also don’t think there is any evidence that he is a “political liberal,” if by that one means he believes in giving the State control of economic production.

I think all the available evidence suggests that Pope Francis sticks as closely to Sacred Tradition as Pope Benedict XVI or St. Thomas Aquinas, including an insistence on the right of individuals to control their own property and a belief that the State should discourage anything that the faith calls sinful.

The fact that he is traditional does not mean that he is not liberal.
I dislike the use of political terms, because too often those using them in conversation fail to adequately define the term, and so there is miscommunication.

But to take it in political terms, The Church has widely and for far longer than you or I have been around, been considered liberal in some of its outlooks and conservative in some. And yes, the comeback has been that the Church is neither liberal nor conservative, it simply follows Christ.

However, in terms of political postures, the Democrats are considered both liberals and for taking care of the poor; and the Republicans are considered conservative and for not taking care of the poor Those are both generalizations, but they are the definition that I will use (so please don’t let’s get into an argument over the terms - I have defined them for the context of the conversation), and as the Pope is clearly for the care of the poor, in that he is both liberal and consistent with the Church and Tradition.

Too many people simply say that if you are Traditional, you are conservative; but that glosses over a lot of territory.

Your definition of liberal - " if by that one means a supporter of such things as abortion, same-sex “marriage,” contraception, divorce, and recreational drug use" - narrows the definition of liberal to vice and immorality. I do not suggest that this is a wrong definition - only that it is not the only definition of a liberal. My definition is different, and is and has been in wide usage for ages.

 

[dmar198]

please don’t let’s get into an argument over the terms - I have defined them for the context of the conversation… My definition [of liberal] is and has been in wide usage for ages.

You seem not to want to argue over definitions, but then you went on to defend your definition – at least, saying it is and has been in wide usage for ages seems like a defense of that definition to me. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to request no argument and then to defend your position. To me, that just means you don’t want contradiction on this point. I hope you don’t mind if I criticize your defense, since you provided one, at least to my mind.

It seems to me that this usage of the term liberal is or would be unacceptable to conservatives. If I understand them correctly, conservatives think that their policies take better care of the poor than liberal policies. Therefore, I think most people would not agree that liberal means taking care of the poor, otherwise conservatives would think of their own policies as liberal. Does that make sense?

 

[otjm]

You seem not to want to argue over definitions, but then you went on to defend your definition – at least, saying it is and has been in wide usage for ages seems like a defense of that definition to me. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to request no argument and then to defend your position. To me, that just means you don’t want contradiction on this point. I hope you don’t mind if I criticize your defense, since you provided one, at least to my mind.

I don’t know that I have ever responded to you; but too many people in these threads want to get sidetracked, getting off the main point (Pope being liberal) and go around Jones’ barn about the definition. I did not defent the position, I explained it.

It seems to me that this usage of the term liberal is or would be unacceptable to conservatives. If I understand them correctly, conservatives think that their policies take better care of the poor than liberal policies. Therefore, I think most people would not agree that liberal means taking care of the poor, otherwise conservatives would think of their own policies as liberal. Does that make sense?

Like I said, it was a generalization. Frankly, I don’t care what the conservatives think about how I used the term. That is sidetracking the issue. The bottom line is that both within the Church and in society in general, the Catholic Church is seen as liberal in social policies, starting with Rerum Novarum and Pope Leo 13th, and continuing on with the social encyclicals subsequent to that.

As I said, I don’t like the use of political terminology, for the simple reason that too many people have a specific idea or definition of what “liberal” means, and the conversations start going around in circles.

You seem to want to define liberals as those with support for abortion, and etc. That is one definition, but not the only one.

You also seem to want to identify someone who follows Church tradition as conservative, but that presumes that all Church tradition is conservative; and in regards to that portion of the Gospels which are referred to as the Social Gospels, that simply does not fit.

 

[ProVobis]

You also seem to want to identify someone who follows Church tradition as conservative, but that presumes that all Church tradition is conservative;

Maybe “those who are stuck in the 50’s” versus “those who are stuck in the 70’s”, otjm?

 

[dmar198]

I don’t know that I have ever responded to you;

I think I must be misunderstanding you. Didn’t you respond to me in post #132? Or do you mean before that? I’m sorry if I’m just misunderstanding you.

too many people in these threads want to get sidetracked, getting off the main point (Pope being liberal) and go around Jones’ barn about the definition.

I think it is very reasonable to define the term liberal if the discussion is about whether the pope is liberal. Without a definition of terms, I don’t think such a discussion can proceed.

I did not defent the position, I explained it.

To me, the sentence “My definition is and has been in wide usage for ages” sounds like a defense.

As I read back through my own comment, this one, up to this point its tone sounds accusatory and aggressive to me. I don’t want it to sound like that. I’m sorry if other readers get that impression as well. I think it is helpful to define terms in discussing whether someone is liberal, but I know that other people think that defining terms derails the conversation. Then I come along and defend the helpfulness of defining terms, and that seems to derail the conversation even further, because now the discussion is not even about what liberal means, its about whether defining terms is helpful or not.

I wish it were not so, but it’s all I feel I can do. Perhaps it would be best to say: if we define liberal as any attitude or policy that is aimed at taking care of the poor, then not only is Pope Francis a liberal, but so are most conservatives, along with everybody except, perhaps, social darwinists. But I don’t think this definition of liberal is useful, because a definition that includes all positions doesn’t help us identify positions.

Like I said, it was a generalization. Frankly, I don’t care what the conservatives think about how I used the term. That is sidetracking the issue.

I think it is very relevant, because a significant amount of the population is conservative. I think we ought to come up with a definition of liberal clear enough that liberals could say, “Yeah, that’s a good attitude” and non-liberals could say “No, that’s a bad attitude.”

The bottom line is that both within the Church and in society in general, the Catholic Church is seen as liberal in social policies, starting with Rerum Novarum and Pope Leo 13th, and continuing on with the social encyclicals subsequent to that.

Seen by whom? I think there are several reasons for doubting that either liberals or conservatives see Rerum Novarum as liberal. For example, its author condemned liberalism as a heresy in the 1888 document Libertas. Assuming that liberals know that the author condemned liberalism in one document, how could they think that the same author was liberal in another document? Also, Rerum Novarum strongly defends the institution of private control of property: Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life. source Thus the author’s goals seem incompatible with liberalism defined either politically or socially.

You seem to want to define liberals as those with support for abortion, and etc.

Sure, because I think liberals adopt a secularist attitude about many moral questions.

That is one definition, but not the only one.

It seems to be the definition Pope Leo XIII supports in Libertas 14-18.

You also seem to want to identify someone who follows Church tradition as conservative, but that presumes that all Church tradition is conservative; and in regards to that portion of the Gospels which are referred to as the Social Gospels, that simply does not fit.

Google defines conservative as: “holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.” If that definition is acceptable, then I think conservative is the same as traditional, and I think the “Social Gospels” are conservative as well, because they are part of Sacred Tradition, and conservative, if Google is correct, means someone who hangs on to tradition.