Orthodox or liberal?

[loyola_rambler]

Thanks, Bertie, but I’m far from liberal. I’m simply no longer considered to be to the right of Attila the Hun.

 

[DebfromOhio]

i am (in my beliefs) Orthodox but in my life i fail miserably.

thankfully i throw myself to the Divine Mercy. but my failures continue to haunt and disable me. i continue to fail.

 

[frdave20]

I would consider myself to be an orthodox Catholic. Orthodox in the sense that I am a loyal son of the Church, faithful to the Magisterium and its authentic teaching.

I find it amazing sometimes to hear fellow Catholics – older ones, are the most surprising – claim that they can disagree with fundamental tenets of the Faith and still are within the bounds of being called ‘good’ Catholics – JF Kerry being one. Another is my grandmother. We both recently had a discussion concerning the notion of EENS and the notion that the Catholic Faith is the True Faith. What surprised me was the fact that my grandmother grew up in the Church of the 40s and 50s – an era that in my mind would have produced solid, Catholic faithful members. I can see that the Church of the 60s and 70s would have been inundated with ‘new age’ theologies, etc., but the 40s and 50s? What has happened?

 

[fix]

frdave20:

I would consider myself to be an orthodox Catholic. Orthodox in the sense that I am a loyal son of the Church, faithful to the Magisterium and its authentic teaching.

I find it amazing sometimes to hear fellow Catholics – older ones, are the most surprising – claim that they can disagree with fundamental tenets of the Faith and still are within the bounds of being called ‘good’ Catholics – JF Kerry being one. Another is my grandmother. We both recently had a discussion concerning the notion of EENS and the notion that the Catholic Faith is the True Faith. What surprised me was the fact that my grandmother grew up in the Church of the 40s and 50s – an era that in my mind would have produced solid, Catholic faithful members. I can see that the Church of the 60s and 70s would have been inundated with ‘new age’ theologies, etc., but the 40s and 50s? What has happened?

The gray haired set are usually the biggest dissenters. They were 20-50 yrs old back in the late 60s. They rejected Humanae Vitae, lost and still are fightin’ “the man”.

 

[Fortiterinre]

This poll is a new low, but the thread is interesting. It irritates me to see the self-identified orthodox fall back on the “deposit of faith” line when the result of polls like this seems to be to Cuisinart every political and cultural contoversy of the day in equal portions with the deposit of faith. I am orthodox and mostly conservative, in fact cheerfully Republican, but moral issues change all the time even in our Church. A few short months ago the Pope made a few remarks about artificial nutrition and hydration which are significantly different from what has been taught for the previous quarter century of his pontificate. Catholic health organizations will spend a lot of time and money adapting these changes. To say that there has been no change is just silly and in fact insulting to the people who must faithfully adapt to the changes. The teaching on capital punishment is different, it did change, and conservative faithful are still trying to adapt to it. Orthodoxy should be measured in how we adapt even to authoritative change in teaching, not in our ability to look at black and convince ourselves it is white, or that we should pretend it is white. When it’s black, it’s black, and it is not heterodox to say so.

 

[K777angel]

I understand what you are trying to glean by using the terms “orthodox” and “liberal” Catholic. But in reality the truer question would be to ask if one is a “faithful Catholic” or not. Faithful in everything.

I had a sneaky “Catholic” religion teacher at my children’s supposedly “Catholic” high school. (We refused to send our youngest child there). He not only taught religion but was and still is the head of the entire Religion Dept. We went 'round and 'round over many things he taught. Corrupting the minds and souls of our children. You know - “Satan isn’t real - just a SYMBOL of evil”
“The bible is JUST A BOOK.” "There is no such thing as truth and we can’t ever say that the Catholic Church has it because that would be “elitist.” On and on. And he would say time and again in class to our children, “Well this is what the Catholic Church teaches - but you DON’T have to believe it…”
It was awful. Anyway, what was so pathetic is that in one of our discussions (the one where he was defending the loopy freshman religion teacher to continue praying to God as “Mother” - even in the sign of the cross…) he told me he considered himself a “moderate” Catholic. What a joke. There is no such thing. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Not to mention ignoring what Christ warned of being “luke warm” and how he will SPEW you out of his mouth…

He wasn’t a moderate. Nor a liberal. He is simply UNFAITHFUL.
And trying to pass himself off as a Catholic. Corrupting innocent souls along the way.

I’ve yet to meet someone who identifies him or herself as a “liberal” or “moderate” Catholic who faithfully attends Mass each week and holy day and submits to the Magesterium of the church.
Because they are not “faithful.” The truer meaning.

 

[redkim]

k777:

Yuck!!!

 

[Thomas2]

Gee whiz…I wonder how long it will be before the question posed will be…

“Are you an American Catholic or a Roman Catholic?” or this version - “Are you with us (meaning all those who are given over to re-inventing the church in America and proclaiming themselves their own popes) or against us?”

I’ve already met a few folks who think they belong to the “American Catholic Church,” and they don’t like me very much.

I really think the question should be “Are you faithful or not?” or for those who are at least trying to live as Jesus would have us, “Do you follow Church teachings all of the time, some of the time, most of the time or I let my ‘conscience’ guide me.”

Sorry if I offend, but it is just my opinion.

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

P.S…and Peter said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life…”

 

[EENS]

Apologia100:

Orthodox. Period.

How could one be considered Catholic and not submit to the authority of what the Church has dogmatically defined? It would like saying that you consider yourself American, but think its okay for some communities in America to be ruled by a local feudal lord.

People try to make strange exceptions or different “interpretations” of the Church’s laws, most commonly on Her Dogma: Outside the Catholic Church there is NO salvation. Some take NO to merely mean “some”, which is not the Church’s teaching. No means no, as Our Lord Himself instructed.

“But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” St. Matthew V. 37

(If you didn’t understand the above translation) NAB: “Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.” Is the Church’s doctrine, NO meaning NO from the “evil one”?

St. James explains further: “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath. But let your speech be, yea, yea: no, no: that you fall not under judgment.” St. James V. 12

Those who twist the words of Our Lord will fall under judgment, as St. James says. Anyone who rejects the slightest law of the Church will perish everlastingly without doubt, as Christ taught.

“For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.” St. Matthew V. 18

By the way, if you are an Americanist, then you should know Americanism is a heresy. On the contrary, the Church has always supported feudalism, which is second only to a monarchy in the heiracrchy of governmental systems (or there could be a combonation of the two, in which a King ruled the country and lords were granted land). Fedualism is a lot like the Church. Power is granted by superiors, and there is a heirarchy, just like the Church. God to Pope to Bishops/Cardinals to Priests in the Church. In feudalism: God to King to lords to vassels to serfs. God bless.

 

[uncleauberon]

Hi all,

I just wanted to return to one of Mandi’s Posts

Mandi:

Liberal Catholic is an oxymoron

**Catholic **- (2) Of or belonging to the Church Universal as organized on an accepted basis of faith and order; of the true apostolic Church, orthodox 1500.

Liberal - take your pick
(1) pertaining to a free man (2) Free from restraint; free in speech or action (3) Free from narrow prejudice; open minded 1781.

You are either Catholic in your thinking or you are liberal. The 2 are opposites!!!

You want to be open minded - Don’t call yourself Catholic. But reevaluate you situation

Me Catholic and Proud - period!!!

:nope:

I submit that an Orthodox Catholic and a Liberal are**, in fact,** the same thing !

The Catholic Church is :
(1) pertaining to a free man
(2) Free from restraint; free in speech or action
(3) Free from narrow prejudice; open minded

A truly Orthodox Catholic person is :
(1) A free man
(2) free from restrain; in speach in action – He is free from sin - free to act in justice and charity – all other actions are sin and “bondage”
(3) Free from narrow prejudice; open minded – To be Catholic (Universal) he must Open His Mind in order to close it again , chew on it and then swallow it. Then open again.
He is free from the narrow prejudice of this world and open to the truth of this World, this Earth, all that is seen and unseen and the world beyond.

Thus by your own definition…
The Catholic Church & the Orthodox Catholic **IS **Liberal.

 

[RomanRyan1088]

This poll might as well have asked something like
“Which one are you A. Overweight or B. Right-handed”

B

 

[Les_Richardson]

Dolly:

I agree with those who disagree on how the poll in worded and the assumptions from that. But I also think that a poll like this, in itself, can be divisive which I don’t believe we should be trying to do.

Didn’t Christ say that he came to bring a sword? He was implying that his message could divide people. I’ve heard Fr John Corapi say that he had been accused of the same thing, being divisive, when he preaches against heterodoxy, born of liberalism or liberal theology. There are times when the truth has to be told, and people have to decide where they stand. Unfortunately, there are those who are not happy with orthodox teaching on doctrine or practice, and will turn away from the church if confronted. Ultimately that is their decision.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Jason Hurd:

Mandi, of course a liberal thinks for him/herself, just as a conservative thinks for him/herself. Being Catholic does NOT mean you turn off your brain function and follow lockstep like a robot. We are all called to obedience, yes, but we are also called to prudence and temperance, neither of which you’ve shown in your outbursts against gentle people who are only expressing an opinion. Please show the rest of us the courtesy of respect and diginified discourse, or this thread will just become a loud, clanging bell of an argument.

And, I would add, in the context of the faith, in light of Dignitatis Humanae, it takes a free person to make the choice for obedience, does it not?

Amarischuk:

Because obedience doesn’t breed progress. If Aquinas had not ventured into the Aristotelean realm Catholicism would be very different today. If the Pope didn’t listen to St. Catherine of Siena the Papacy would still be in Avignon.

That’s a pretty categorical statement. If the apostles had not been obedient to Jesus Christ in the first place the church would not exist today, and I would suggest that the New Covenant is progress over the Old, progress planned by God himself.
On the other hand, progress for the sake of progress is nonsensical. If something can be done better (better being defined by those to whom we owe allegiance and obedience) then by all means lets change. But like the old saying, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Of course, who decides whether it’s broke? This poll, I think, tends to highlight that sometimes there are those who claim adherence to the church but want change in doctrine and act in accord with those desires (see stats offered by loyola rambler) seemingly with the presumption that by doing it, the doctrine will change, and there will be no consequences.
loyola rambler:

But there are so many people, even on this site, who have real disdain for everything associated with Vatican II. The fact that it’s a very real, very valid council seems to be absolutely meaningless. In just the last week I’ve read people dismissing everything, including the very order of the mass and the use of the vernacular. There’s no sense of understanding of the social responsibility that the council required of us, nor is there any sense that we really are bound by its documents.

Sad but true. It can be heavy going but it is worthwhile reading the Vatican II documents. All of them, several times, and in context of the whole. Very orthodox documents. In fact, the content of Humanae Vitae is an expansion of doctrine stated there.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

This poll is an insult. There is no “option”. Liberalism is a sin against Jesus - period.

 

[Nate]

I certainly consider myself to be an orthodox Catholic even though I support one of the things on the “liberal” list, namely, married priests. This this has nothing to do with orthodoxy which concerns the truths of the faith. It is just a discipline of the Latin rite, and is not even universally Catholic.

It has nothing to do with obedience to the hierarchy, because I do not support any priest breaking his vows, or trying to circumvent them through any form of disobedience. I just think it is time for a change. back to the original Church requirements.

 

[reggie]

Am I a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal? Gee, I always get those two confused. I was a registered Democrat, fallen away Catholic if it feels good do it type until a few years ago. I believe in the One Holy, Apostolic and Catholic church. I believe in her doctrines; yet believe that there are small “t” traditions and practices that can be changed without disturbing the foundation or the deposit of faith. Dorothy Day and Mother Theresa are two that I most admire. There is only one dealbreaker for me, that is abortion. I cannot and will not support it. I believe that when this country returns to the love of life it will once again become a great and prosperous country. God will provide for us if we but turn to Him in all things. So I guess I am a conservative orthodox catholic liberal. Oh no, I’m confused once again.

 

[frdave20]

Fortiterinre:

This poll is a new low, but the thread is interesting. It irritates me to see the self-identified orthodox fall back on the “deposit of faith” line when the result of polls like this seems to be to Cuisinart every political and cultural contoversy of the day in equal portions with the deposit of faith. I am orthodox and mostly conservative, in fact cheerfully Republican, but moral issues change all the time even in our Church. A few short months ago the Pope made a few remarks about artificial nutrition and hydration which are significantly different from what has been taught for the previous quarter century of his pontificate. Catholic health organizations will spend a lot of time and money adapting these changes. To say that there has been no change is just silly and in fact insulting to the people who must faithfully adapt to the changes. The teaching on capital punishment is different, it did change, and conservative faithful are still trying to adapt to it. Orthodoxy should be measured in how we adapt even to authoritative change in teaching, not in our ability to look at black and convince ourselves it is white, or that we should pretend it is white. When it’s black, it’s black, and it is not heterodox to say so.

I disagree with your position that moral issues change. perhaps i am reading more into your statement, “moral issues change all the time…”. From your statements made afterwards, it would seem to be that you are actually arguing that moral philosophy and theology change all of the time. This is not true. The Holy Father did not simply change the Church’s position. Rather, he brought to light a more full and complete expose of what Holy Mother Church has always held. Change implicates difference – whole and complete. Ordinary means of medical care has always been held absolute and non-negotiable in the eyes of the Church. Through the Church’s study, prayer, contemplation, etc she has further expounded and made clear that which has always been held. we could hold the position of the Immaculate Conception, for example. It was not declared dogma until centuries had passed, yet having declared it did not mean the Church’s position had ‘changed’

Orthodoxy is to believe as the Church believes, for she is infallible and can never err.

 

[ricatholic]

Orthodoxy is to believe as the Church believes, for she is infallible and can never err.

But that is only on doctrine and dogma and most of the infallibility stuff is stuff that has no proof.

As for the never erring, that doesn’t count what the church teaches by its actions.

Peace

 

[fix]

Fortiterinre:

This poll is a new low, but the thread is interesting. It irritates me to see the self-identified orthodox fall back on the “deposit of faith” line when the result of polls like this seems to be to Cuisinart every political and cultural contoversy of the day in equal portions with the deposit of faith. I am orthodox and mostly conservative, in fact cheerfully Republican, but moral issues change all the time even in our Church. A few short months ago the Pope made a few remarks about artificial nutrition and hydration which are significantly different from what has been taught for the previous quarter century of his pontificate. Catholic health organizations will spend a lot of time and money adapting these changes. To say that there has been no change is just silly and in fact insulting to the people who must faithfully adapt to the changes. The teaching on capital punishment is different, it did change, and conservative faithful are still trying to adapt to it. Orthodoxy should be measured in how we adapt even to authoritative change in teaching, not in our ability to look at black and convince ourselves it is white, or that we should pretend it is white. When it’s black, it’s black, and it is not heterodox to say so.

I must disagree with almost every line of this post. The deposit of faith is what we must believe to be faithful Catholics. If we reject even one teaching of Mother Church, then we reject the ENTIRE faith.

No teaching on faith and morals has ever changed. Doctrines may be developed, but they never contradict the truth.

Capitol punishment has not changed. It may never be taught that one must think it is an intrnsically evil act. The Pope can’t impose that because it is not intrinsically evil. Now, the Pope says it should be rare in our culture and at this time. I agree, but that is not binding on my conscience. Those who say it is need to cite proof from the magisterium.

Denying food and water is not a new taeching. There are some dissenting theologians who over the years have attempted to water down the teaching and the Pope has corrected them.

IMO, the poblem the Vatican has placed over emphasis on collegiality. This bad idea is what has lead to poor catechesis, loss of faith and the idea that conscience is a teacher, rather than a pupil. Central teachings are ignored, dismissed or never taught properly to the great mass of Catholics in this country. We each will have much to answer for, including the bishops who fail to Shepherd.

 

[mtr01]

After reading this threat it seems pretty clear IMO that there are two dimensions being discussed: othodoxy/heterodoxy and liberalism/conservativism. Now the way I see it, the first dimension applies to Church Dogma. Every Catholic is required to believe in the truth of Church doctrine as defined in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium. Since truth is unchanging liberalism or conservativism simply does not apply.

Where they can apply, IMO, is in regard to Church disciplines and customs. These are by nature changeable as the times require. One can be for or against a married priesthood, or alter girls, or what have you, and still remain orthodox in Church doctrine.

That being said, regardless of what one thinks, there are still rules that apply and cannot be broken. A priest is free to think that the celibacy requirement should be abolished, but he is not free to act on those beliefs. To use a secular analogy, in this country, one is certainly free to think that marijuana use should be legal. However, it is against the “rules” of the country, and if that person is caught using marijuana, he is going to be punished according to the “rules” of the country.

Perhaps in the future the rules may change, but until that time, neither the pot-smoker or the priest in favor of marriage is not free to act on his beliefs.