R
rosarywarrior
Guest
If we are Catholic and we follow the teachings of the church and the Magesterium, how is it possible to label ourselves a liberal or conservative catholic?
- Status
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
I don’t. The label is use when I need to is “Magisterium-loyal Catholic”. It clearly defines where I stand and everyone who understands the Church knows what it means.
R
robertaf
Guest
Good Morning Church
I am Catholic. I beleive the Doctrines of the Church and the Creed.
I am a Born Again, Spirit Filled, Bible Thumpen, Washed in the Blood of the Lamb, Roman Catholic.
And I do my very best to be obedient.
I don’t put labels on myself or anyone else.
I am Catholic.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_8_10.gif
I am Catholic. I beleive the Doctrines of the Church and the Creed.
I am a Born Again, Spirit Filled, Bible Thumpen, Washed in the Blood of the Lamb, Roman Catholic.
And I do my very best to be obedient.
I don’t put labels on myself or anyone else.
I am Catholic.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_8_10.gif
S
space_ghost
Guest
some only know how to argue… i won’t use “debate” that’s not what they do… they define their whole life on their preceived political stand (sad huh?) They have to first find out how you feel hoping for someone who doesn’t march to the same tune that they do… and then like a crouching tiger they pounce, and begin to rip and tear at the fabric of your heart… they aren’t interested in your point or you even understanding their point, they just want to ram their views down the unspecting throat of someone who might have a genuine interest in learning something… watch these threads… you will notice the assumption by many that to be truly catholic is to be republican, and that to be democrat is to be satan’s assistant… well, i accept their opinion, we are in america, however they won’t allow you a differing view without first destroying every catholic point they make with name calling, back biting, and some of the most hurtful displays of nasty statements, that i have never witnessed before on a so-called christian forum…
You will notice, if they can’t attach a label to you first, they are hardpressed to carry on any type of adult conversation… but don’t dispair, they don’t gain any converts by their ilk, they only bolster the non-catholics by supplying them with proof of their christian tollerance and love… yep, buckets and buckets of their christian love…
M
Mandi
Guest
You are right! it should not be possible for someone to be a liberal or a conservative Catholic. In years gone by the statement “I am Catholic”, was enough said.
But in this day and age the Church has become so divided that it now appears nessesary to label Catholics. The only thing I can honestly say regarding this is that this should be a huge warning for all that there is something seriously, seriously wrong!
C
csr
Guest
“Liberal” tends to mean making a greater effort to appeal or accommodate to secular values or other religions, while “conservative” as a term has become bifurcated. The term itself implies a desire to ‘conserve’, but some “conservatives” are in favor of the changes implemented through and since Vatican II, while other “conservatives” hold that many changes have been deleterious to the faith. A recent book titled The Great Façade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church by Woods & Ferrara (Remnant Press, 2002) suggests the term “neo-Catholic” for the first group. The latter group are often termed “traditionalists”, but that becomes confusing as many of those who favor the changes believe that they are being traditional as well. Words like “liberal” and “conservative” tend to have relative use in different milieus across time, so they are not really clear. They are nicknames that warrant further explanation if any kind of real analysis is being done.
E
elgom
Guest
I’m kind of afraid to write this. I don’t mean to offend anyone. I just don’t know why there are different titles for a Catholic either. Has anyone ever read the book “Liberalism is a sin”. Is this true? Just trying to figure out why we have any labels that differentiate us.
Just a Catholic, Obedient to the Holy Father and the Magisterium of
the Catholic Church. Isn’t everybody?
God bless.
Just a Catholic, Obedient to the Holy Father and the Magisterium of
the Catholic Church. Isn’t everybody?
God bless.
L
LilyOfTheFather
Guest
I define myself as a Magisterium-loyal Catholic who believes that many of the changes of Vatican II were detrimental to the Church.
R
Ray_Marshall
Guest
I consider myself to be a practicing Catholic, and if I practice it long enough, and have enough good coaching, I might get to be good at it!
D
davy39
Guest
You know, it’s a good thing there was a Vatican II. Otherwise, what would we have to blame all our problems on? Could it be our shortcomings as human beings? Nah, we’re all perfect, and all the bishops and cardinals were wrong.
R
rfk
Guest
space ghost:
Just in case anyone misunderstands your point, it seems like you also went to the trouble of providing quite an example of it. Lighten up, please.
S
stellina
Guest
My Serbian Orthodox friend told me something very interesting & very appropriate to this topic. It seemed that at one of their services the priest was explaining how they should also consider themselves catholic (note the lower case) because they believe in the truth. I replied that if he’s a catholic Orthodox, then I’m an orthodox Catholic for the same reason! We got a good laugh out of that one, although it’s true.
I resent all this liberal/conservative labeling, especially in discussions about religion. As a lot of people in these forums have noted, the Church is not a democracy & was never meant to be such. The only way to be Catholic is to be orthodox, i.e. accepting the fullness of truth.
I resent all this liberal/conservative labeling, especially in discussions about religion. As a lot of people in these forums have noted, the Church is not a democracy & was never meant to be such. The only way to be Catholic is to be orthodox, i.e. accepting the fullness of truth.
S
space_ghost
Guest
you are right… i let the fevor from an earlier political thread (that i didn’t post at) bubble over into this one… my apologies to all those shook in the quake… thanks for the note…
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
Also remember that labelling, particularly unnecessary or ambiguous labelling, may be part of the enemy’s “divide and conquer” tactics (see the Tactics of the Enemy Thread) he uses against us.
M
Meggie
Guest
My label?
I am an poorly educated, hot-tempered, wishy-washy, not-sure-who-God-is, wilfull (in both good and bad ways), Pope loving, truth seeking curious teenage Roman Catholic
I am an poorly educated, hot-tempered, wishy-washy, not-sure-who-God-is, wilfull (in both good and bad ways), Pope loving, truth seeking curious teenage Roman Catholic
I
IoA
Guest
Well…
“Liberal” is often another term for “heterodox,” and that’s where the major difference is here. If you’re heterodox, you aren’t really faithful to the magisterium, because you hold views that differ from orthodoxy, and the magisterium’s view on a subject defines the orthodox view. “Conservative” is just another way to label an orthodox perspective, and isn’t really needed. If we say we’re faithful to the magisterium, it implies that we are orthodox.
It also implies that we aren’t agitators for change. This is the major defining quality of the “liberal” Catholic; they seek a Church reflecting more modern, secular qualities (i.e. a feminism which states that men and women can’t be respected unless they’re both allowed to be priests).
The proof is usually in action: Do the people in question consent fully to the Church’s magisterium, or do they continue to push towards change? A question worth keeping an eye on.
“Liberal” is often another term for “heterodox,” and that’s where the major difference is here. If you’re heterodox, you aren’t really faithful to the magisterium, because you hold views that differ from orthodoxy, and the magisterium’s view on a subject defines the orthodox view. “Conservative” is just another way to label an orthodox perspective, and isn’t really needed. If we say we’re faithful to the magisterium, it implies that we are orthodox.
It also implies that we aren’t agitators for change. This is the major defining quality of the “liberal” Catholic; they seek a Church reflecting more modern, secular qualities (i.e. a feminism which states that men and women can’t be respected unless they’re both allowed to be priests).
The proof is usually in action: Do the people in question consent fully to the Church’s magisterium, or do they continue to push towards change? A question worth keeping an eye on.
L
loyola_rambler
Guest
There’s a real problem with using political terms to label religious belief. For one thing, there may be a single issue where someone is socially liberal (say the rights of the poor) and they may butt heads with the Catholic PTB in pushing for these rights. Does that make someone heterodox, though? No. We’re not talking issues of faith and morals, we’re talking issues of rights and dignity in a defined country and within a specific culture. The fact that the Church intersperses with secular organizations on such an issue doesn’t mean a righteous, faithful Catholic can not press his/her Church to make a greater impact or to be more progressive.
Another problem is that many of us are very uncomfortable with the actions of the Magisterium, especially in the sex abuse cases. Yet if we speak up, there is a faction (far-right if you will) who tell us that it’s our Church right or wrong and that we have to “trust” those in power will “do the right thing”. Well they haven’t done the right thing yet…and it’s been several years. So why should we trust them to change without a push from the pews?
I was very uncomfortable with how progressive the Church tried to be in the 70s. I was pretty comfortable with their stances and actions in the late 80s. Now I’m getting very uncomfortable with the swing to the other extreme that we’ve entered into over the past few years. So if you really want to label me, I guess I’m a faithful 1989 Catholic. But to me, I’m just a happy Catholic who avoids the extremes and has a much stronger faith as a result.
Another problem is that many of us are very uncomfortable with the actions of the Magisterium, especially in the sex abuse cases. Yet if we speak up, there is a faction (far-right if you will) who tell us that it’s our Church right or wrong and that we have to “trust” those in power will “do the right thing”. Well they haven’t done the right thing yet…and it’s been several years. So why should we trust them to change without a push from the pews?
I was very uncomfortable with how progressive the Church tried to be in the 70s. I was pretty comfortable with their stances and actions in the late 80s. Now I’m getting very uncomfortable with the swing to the other extreme that we’ve entered into over the past few years. So if you really want to label me, I guess I’m a faithful 1989 Catholic. But to me, I’m just a happy Catholic who avoids the extremes and has a much stronger faith as a result.
I
IoA
Guest
loyola rambler:
You’re free to believe that the Church hasn’t done what it needs to, to adequately address the scandal, and nobody really has the right to question your “Catholicity.”. However, often, I’ve seen heterodox solutions come from people claiming to want to clean things up. This is typical amongst the Voice of the Faithful crowd and other progressives. For instance, I’ve seen more than one individual suggest that women priests would never have allowed this sort of thing to happen, so we therefore need women priests. So to adequately handle the scandal, some have resorted to heterodox claims in order to right wrongs, in an attempt to further their own agendas. That is what must be avoided.
My explanation was meant to limit the scope in question to issues of doctrine and dogma. The “Magisterium” doesn’t make rulings regarding the abuse issue; their proclamation is simply that any sort of activity outside of marriage constitutes grave sin. The Magisterium doesn’t concern itself with the handling of the scandal. I disagree with Pope John Paul II on a couple things, but because I’m not bound to his interpretation, there’s nothing for me to be heterodox about.
You’re free to believe that the Church hasn’t done what it needs to, to adequately address the scandal, and nobody really has the right to question your “Catholicity.”. However, often, I’ve seen heterodox solutions come from people claiming to want to clean things up. This is typical amongst the Voice of the Faithful crowd and other progressives. For instance, I’ve seen more than one individual suggest that women priests would never have allowed this sort of thing to happen, so we therefore need women priests. So to adequately handle the scandal, some have resorted to heterodox claims in order to right wrongs, in an attempt to further their own agendas. That is what must be avoided.
- Status