Orthodox or liberal?

[Southernrich]

martino:

Question for Amarischuk: Being an admitted liberal Catholic, are you obedient to the Magisterium in all matters of faith and morals?

Wht don’t you just ask her to begin her response, “Bless me, Martino, for I have sinned. My last confession was…”

Who the HELL are you to ask someone if they are obedient in all matters of faith and morals? Are you going to provide absolution? Have you taken Holy Orders?

 

[space_ghost]

I question your definition of the word liberal and it’s usage… liberal in any dictionary is open minded… conservative just means if you don’t think like me something is wrong… orthodox just means you play by the rules… i have met very few Catholics who don’t play by the rules, most all of us fall short, but we pick ourselves up dust ourselves off and start all over again… conservatives who are always just curious about the splinter in someone elses eye but can’t see it for the giant redwood in their own eye intrigue me… no they don’t really…

 

[Richard_Lamb]

Southernrich:

Why don’t you just say, “Orthodox means loving God, liberal means urinating on the Host”? Your prejudice is showing.

The opposite of orthodox is heterodox, the opposite of liberal is conservative.

A conservative Catholic might believe some heresies, a liberal Catholic (say, about the death penalty) might be totally orthodox.

Learn what those terms mean!

Accfepting the death penalty as permissible as taught in the CCC is not heresie…

Teaching that Abortion is not wrong, is…

 

[darcee]

Oh that wording is horrible and only two options?

For one I don’t care if a priest is gay as long as he is celibate. I don’t give a flip who the man isn’t sleeping with.

Does that exclude me from being a traditional catholic?

Additionally I am independant in politics. I vote in line with my conscience.

-D

 

[Southernrich]

Richard Lamb:

Accfepting the death penalty as permissible as taught in the CCC is not heresie…

Teaching that Abortion is not wrong, is…

Didn’t say that accepting the death penalty is heresy. Jus that there are conservative Catholics who might accept some heresy - supporting or sympathizing with, say, the St. Pius X Society.

 

[Richard_Lamb]

Southernrich:

Didn’t say that accepting the death penalty is heresy. Jus that there are conservative Catholics who might accept some heresy - supporting or sympathizing with, say, the St. Pius X Society.

Sorry, misunderstood you…SSPX is to far over the other direction and schismatic…

 

[cmom]

darcee:

Oh that wording is horrible and only two options?

For one I don’t care if a priest is gay as long as he is celibate. I don’t give a flip who the man isn’t sleeping with.

Does that exclude me from being a traditional catholic?

Additionally I am independant in politics. I vote in line with my conscience.

-D

Just remember your conscience is to be in line with Church teaching

 

[amarischuk]

martino:

Question for Amarischuk: Being an admitted liberal Catholic, are you obedient to the Magisterium in all matters of faith and morals?

Sorry, but first off I am a male (despite my lesbian reference earlier) and a former seminarian at that. When I entered the seminary I fashioned myself a conservative Catholic. Your question is obviously intended to show the moral bankruptcy of liberal Catholicism but your argument is circular. If I do not believe all matters of faith and morals promulgated by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church then obviously I am not obedient in that respect. In other words: I likely sin by your standards but not by my own.

But there is the other aspect of the “have you sinned” question. Well, yes and I plan on sinning in the futur (or at least I recognize that I will sin in the futur). At least I can admit this, though I am not some Victorian-puritan and I do not believe that everything is sinful.

And thank you Southernrich but we all know that even if Martino has taken holy Orders, he cannot grant absolution over the internet.

When I am dead,
I hope it can be said,
“His sins were scarlet,
but his books were read.”
-Hilaire Belloc

 

[Southernrich]

RobbyS:

But the introduction of married priests into the LATIN rite would be contrary to a tradition that goes back at least a thousand years.

Would be? There are already such men. They are Anglican priests who have converted, and by special permission, have been ordained.

 

[mattyp]

Orthodox, baby! How could you call yourself Catholic and be anything else?

That’s like saying, “I’m a vegetarian, but I still eat meat”. If you don’t follow the rules, you can’t realistically be called a Catholic…In my opinion anyway.

:tsktsk:

 

[darcee]

cmom:

Just remember your conscience is to be in line with Church teaching

No offense… but “Duh”. That doesn’t necessitate being a Republican though.

 

[martino]

amarischuk:

Sorry, but first off I am a male (despite my lesbian reference earlier) and a former seminarian at that. When I entered the seminary I fashioned myself a conservative Catholic. Your question is obviously intended to show the moral bankruptcy of liberal Catholicism but your argument is circular. If I do not believe all matters of faith and morals promulgated by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church then obviously I am not obedient in that respect. In other words: I likely sin by your standards but not by my own.

But there is the other aspect of the “have you sinned” question. Well, yes and I plan on sinning in the futur (or at least I recognize that I will sin in the futur). At least I can admit this, though I am not some Victorian-puritan and I do not believe that everything is sinful.

My question was not intened to show the moral bankruptcy of liberal Catholicism, but was to prove that there is no such thing.
You say that you do not believe everything is sinful, well who does? By that did you mean that you dont believe everything that the Church says is sinful really is?

If you hold heretical beliefs (based on official Church teaching) then you are not in full communion with the Church. You seemed to have admitted as much and thereby proved my argument for me. :tiphat:

 

[amarischuk]

If you hold heretical beliefs (based on official Church teaching) then you are not in full communion with the Church.

Darn right I am a heretic as I disagree with a number of “official” church teachings which are not part of the deposit of faith. Only fourty years ago it was also contrary to official Church teachings to read:

Descartes
Pascal
Diderot
Hugo
Dumas
The Larousse Dictionary
Peter Abelard
Erasmus
Malebranch
Locke
Berkeley
Swift
etc.
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/indexlibrorum.html

But you seemed to have confused the Magisterium with the Church.

 

[martino]

amarischuk:

Darn right I am a heretic as I disagree with a number of “official” church teachings which are not part of the deposit of faith…
But you seemed to have confused the Magisterium with the Church.

No sir, I am not confused! I was very specific about whether or not you were faithful to the Magisterium of the Church. I mentioned heretical views vs. “official Church teaching”. It is plain to anyone with a clear head that we are talking about Church doctrine here. Doctrine that you proudly boast “darn right I am a heretic as I disagree with a number of ‘official’ church teaching…”.

The funny thing is that you began by initially claiming that just because you were a self proclaimed liberal that didnt mean you weren’t a faithful Catholic. It didn’t take long for your true colors to show! Once again, you prove my point for me!!

 

[amarischuk]

As Mandi said:

Those who call themselves a liberal Catholic are acknowledging that they do not accept the WHOLE COMPLETE TEACHINGS of the Catholic Church so they are not Catholic.

I maintain that one can be a Catholic and not accept every Magisterial pronouncement regarding faith and morals. Let’s look at the Galileo example where certainly the Magisterium concidered his Copernican heliocentric theory a threat to faith and morals:

This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith…

Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy
Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture

law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

I would maintain that monogenism is presently an official church teaching (some would say infallible) as evidenced by the Catechism (385-390) and numerous Papal documents. Infact, some theologians would go so far as to argue that transformism is contrary to the official teachings of the Church. rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html

Let’s look at the beautiful case of John Henry Cardinal Newman (taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia 1913):

During the interval between 1854 and 1860 Newman had passed from the convert’s golden fervours into a state which resembled criticism of prevailing methods in church government and education. His friends included some of a type known to history as “Liberal Catholics.” Of Montalembert and Lacordaire he wrote in 1864: “In their general line of thought and conduct I enthusiastically concur and consider them to be before their age.”

newadvent.org/cathen/10794a.htm

Or look at Giles of Rome who was forced to renounce Aquinas’ system by the Magisterium.

Or the censuring of Louis Marie Olivier Duchesne and placing of his works on the index.

Or the censuring of Yves Congar.

Or the vindication of Johann Adam Mohler’s ecclesiology in Vatican II.

There are thousands, if not millions of examples where good Catholics desented from Church positions at the time and the Church changed and accomidated them, not the other way around.

Which leaves me with the impression that (according to your definition) “true Catholics” only use their heads to rest their hats on…a sad day, when Catholicism is reduced to American fundamentalism.

 

[S_Corda]

mattyp:

… If you don’t follow the rules, you can’t realistically be called a Catholic…In my opinion anyway.

:tsktsk:

In that case, if I miss Mass on Sunday, I have have broken the rules, and thus I am not a Catholic.

If I tell a lie, then I have broken the rules, so I’m not Catholic.

If I have unclean thoughts about that person down the hall, then I have broken the rules, and I’m not Catholic.

So, now that I’m no longer a Catholic, I can’t go to confession or receive any sacrament, and I can’t be baptized again, so I have no chance at forgiveness.

I didn’t think that’s the way it was supposed to be.

 

[Mandi]

S_Corda:

In that case, if I miss Mass on Sunday, I have have broken the rules, and thus I am not a Catholic.

If I tell a lie, then I have broken the rules, so I’m not Catholic.

If I have unclean thoughts about that person down the hall, then I have broken the rules, and I’m not Catholic.

So, now that I’m no longer a Catholic, I can’t go to confession or receive any sacrament, and I can’t be baptized again, so I have no chance at forgiveness.

I didn’t think that’s the way it was supposed to be.

Take heart, you can only be baptized once! and Confession is always open for a fallen away Catholic. If you want to be Catholic again go back to the confessional!

God Bless all!

 

[bengal_fan]

Tom of Assisi:

Just curious.

How many out there are

orthodox: assent to the Church’s moral and doctrinal teachings, don’t use contraceptives, attend Mass weekly, don’t support women, gay, or married priests, agree with Catholic Answers voter’s guide, pray and go to confession regularly…

liberal: think the Church should have married or women priests, don’t always assent to the moral teachings of Church: maybe birth control/sterilization are really o.k., will vote for candidates that are pro-abortion, pro-euthenasia, pro-stem-cell research, or pro homosexual rights.
thanks

pretty broad here. some of the things you list are doctinal and others are disciplines (married priests for example). also, are you talking about open, practicing homosexuals or some one who struggles with being tempted but never acts it out? i am pro-life and always vote for the pro-life candidate (that has a chance of winning, there are 3rd party candidates that might be more pro-life than say…george bush, but they have no chance of winning and by voting for bush you get the best chance of ending as many abortions as possible). i think the church should relax their stand on married priests (forced celibacy is not scriptural nor in line with the first century church, it was brough in later albeit soon after but still later and the arguments for it don’t hold up under criticism). women priests on the other hand are forbidden in scripture and history and should not (nor can it be as it is capital T tradition i think) be changed. not sure where i stand on birth control or sterilization (as long as it doesn’t abort a fertilized egg). is that capital T tradition or is that able to be changed? my point is some of the choices in the poll don’t make it possible for me to vote either although i would consider myself orthodox.

 

[usherMike]

There are alredy married priests, but the problem is that the husband and wife both have to take a vow of celebacy and I think poverty. I know my wife wouldnt stand for either.

 

[cmom]

Married priests do not take a vow of celibacy or poverty.