Should liberals leave the catholic church?

[coyote]

Yes.

Hand in hand with anal retentive, sanctimonious priggs.

Then again, maybe that’s NOT a good plan.

 

[boogablue]

goofyjim:

No, we need sinners on both ends of the spectrum to balance things out. Otherwise some might think they are already saints.

YOU ARE ALL SAINTS until you reject Jesus Christ!!!

Don’t you get it yet!!!

God wants you to be like him…with him, of him and about him!!!

Once Christ died for you to be reconciled to God, You’re back in the Family!!!

You can do no wrong in the eyes of God. Unless you deny Jesus and his Blood covering is removed from your soul…you’re clean!!! You’re a saint!!

Now comes the hard part…Now you have to act like one!

 

[Orionthehunter]

JamesG:

Yes.
That is my perspective on it. I think Christ makes this very clear.

The weed is also harmful to the wheat, its roots trying to starve the wheat from its source.

Maybe you are a a child of God and just being starved by secularism. It is hard to tell because liberal could mean so many things.

Oh my!!! This morning at Eucharistic Adoration, I reflected on Mathew 7 (I know I’m a day late as that was yesterday’s devotion ) which is the “judge not, lest thee be judged” teaching. Despite being described by those who know me as politically and religiously conservative, I don’t think we are being good witnesses of the Good News by calling people who hold liberal views as “poisonous weeds”. We are called to find Christ in everyone, especially in those it is hard to see Him in them and we are called to be Christ to them. Christ didn’t convert Mary Magdelan by calling her a raving slut but by showing her His love.

Or this post by JamesG: This is exactly why Liberals should not be allowed to enter the church. The fact is they pick and chose only what they want to believe in even when the truth is right in front of them.

All they want to do is promote relativism within the church. They think that everything is relative to their own interpretation. They have no respect for the truth even when it looks them right in the face. They only validate the credibility of the Gospel when they hear something that confirms their modern secular life and then they discredit everything else that is against it. The reason for this is that they don’t want to change. They don’t want to ever feel like they are wrong.

They are like Pilate, always thinking about their own power and how they can attain more. To quote what I said previously.

Liberal “Catholics” reminded me of when Pilate stood between Jesus and an angry crowd, asked the question, “What is truth? (John 18:38)” Imagine his frustration as he really could find no fault in Jesus. Although Pilate was frustrated, it did not negate the truth. He was looking at the truth and that truth was Jesus.

You only have to ask these Liberals one simple question. What fault do you find with the word of Jesus? The sad thing is that even when they can’t find any fault they resort to public opinion to validate their point of view. The sad thing is that this is exactly what happened to Jesus. Pilate used democracy to crucify Christ. Liberals want democracy in the church so they can do the same.

James, do you really think this tone will draw people who hold views outside the Teaching closer to the Truth?

 

[mike182d]

boogablue:

YOU ARE ALL SAINTS until you reject Jesus Christ!!!

Where is that in Scripture?

You can do no wrong in the eyes of God. Unless you deny Jesus and his Blood covering is removed from your soul…you’re clean!!! You’re a saint!!

Bible chaper and verse?

 

[JamesG]

Orionthehunter:

Oh my!!! This morning at Eucharistic Adoration, I reflected on Mathew 7 (I know I’m a day late as that was yesterday’s devotion ) which is the “judge not, lest thee be judged” teaching. Despite being described by those who know me as politically and religiously conservative, I don’t think we are being good witnesses of the Good News by calling people who hold liberal views as “poisonous weeds”. We are called to find Christ in everyone, especially in those it is hard to see Him in them and we are called to be Christ to them. Christ didn’t convert Mary Magdelan by calling her a raving slut but by showing her His love.

It is very typical of liberal catholics to quote “judge not”. They use it to justify their actions and promote moral relativism within the church. “Oh you shouldn’t judge” Yes that is true, but I like to point out that they already have a judge and his name is Jesus. So if they think they are not going to be judged then they are wrong. Mathew 7 is not justification for their actions.

I would not call Magdelan a raving slut, I would only hope that she asks herself that question. If she doesn’t then she will continue to sin. The same is true with those who are infected by the weeds of the field. You have to always ask yourself those questions before you can grow.

Please explain to me how liberals that infect the church are not the weeds in the field? Homosexual priest, angry women who want power in the church, catholics who support abortion… and the list goes on.

How are they not the savage wolves of Acts 20:29,30?

James, do you really think this tone will draw people who hold views outside the Teaching closer to the Truth?

Yes I do. What exactly didn’t you like about my post? I read it over again and I don’t understand what you had a problem with.

I’m not sure how you can argue with what Christ says about the weeds in the field. Do you think that the tone of the Jesus was wrong? I’ll wonder if that is what you would of said to him.

All I need do is show them EXACTLY what Christ said.

At some point they must realize that they are wrong
Step two is for them to come closer to God through reconciliation

Most of the time they don’t want to listen anyway. They don’t have enough humility to even get to that point. They are stuck trying pick and chose what they want to listen to. Even when the truth is right infront of their eyes they do not listen.

Often when we want to grow in Christ we first have to ask the question," Are we wheat or the weeds in the field?"

There is nothing in between. There is no such think as a liberal catholic. You are a catholic or you are not.

 

[buffalo]

cathgal:

They do not hold the keys.

And only Bishops and higher have teaching authority. Theologians can speculate all they want, but they hold no authority.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

Oh my!!! This morning at Eucharistic Adoration, I reflected on Mathew 7 (I know I’m a day late as that was yesterday’s devotion ) which is the “judge not, lest thee be judged” teaching.

Read the rest of the passage.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

Read the rest of the passage.

LOL I did. As I struggle w/ my planks, I see my incapacity to condemn another for their spec. While I hold and believe that the Church is the Body of Christ empowered by Christ, I don’t think I’m worthy to call my fellow struggling children of God poisionous weeds. Jesus will determine who are the weeds vs. the wheat. Not you and not JamesG.

Furthermore, I’ve never said once in my nearly thousand posts that we are not going to be held accountable by Jesus Christ. Nor do I condone or endorse relativism.

Finally, calling another Christian (regardless how fallen) “poisionous weeds” is analogous to calling Mary Magdalen a raving slut. I just don’t think it is conducive to witness. James disagrees and he is free to hold that opinion. And if you think he is correct, you may hold that opinion.

Penny, if you were stuck on deserted island with me or James, which do you think you’d be more likely to discuss theology and potentially reconsider your opinions? Who do you think would be a more effective instrument of the Holy Spirit?

But do not imply that our disagreement means that I or those who disagree with you are “relativists” or otherwise hold less fidelity to the Teaching and Truth embodied and entrusted to the Pope and Magisterium.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

LOL I did. As I struggle w/ my planks, I see my incapacity to condemn another for their spec. While I hold and believe that the Church is the Body of Christ empowered by Christ, I don’t think I’m worthy to call my fellow struggling children of God poisionous weeds. Jesus will determine who are the weeds vs. the wheat. Not you and not JamesG.

Furthermore, I’ve never said once in my nearly thousand posts that we are not going to be held accountable by Jesus Christ. Nor do I condone or endorse relativism.

Finally, calling another Christian (regardless how fallen) “poisionous weeds” is analogous to calling Mary Magdalen a raving slut. I just don’t think it is conducive to witness. James disagrees and he is free to hold that opinion. And if you think he is correct, you may hold that opinion.

But do not imply that our disagreement means that I or those who disagree with you are “relativists” or otherwise hold less fidelity to the Teaching and Truth embodied and entrusted to the Pope and Magisterium.

I got my passages mixed up. I meant this one:

11 "If your brother 12 sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. 16 13 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. 18 and from the Catechism:

**1435 **Conversion is accomplished in daily life by gestures of reconciliation, concern for the poor, the exercise and defense of justice and right, by the admission of faults to one’s brethren, fraternal correction, revision of life, examination of conscience, spiritual direction, acceptance of suffering, endurance of persecution for the sake of righteousness. Taking up one’s cross each day and following Jesus is the surest way of penance.

**1829 **The *fruits *of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

I got my passages mixed up. I meant this one:

11 "If your brother 12 sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. 16 13 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. 18 and from the Catechism:

**1435 **Conversion is accomplished in daily life by gestures of reconciliation, concern for the poor, the exercise and defense of justice and right, by the admission of faults to one’s brethren, fraternal correction, revision of life, examination of conscience, spiritual direction, acceptance of suffering, endurance of persecution for the sake of righteousness. Taking up one’s cross each day and following Jesus is the surest way of penance.

**1829 **The *fruits *of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest.

Buffalo, I love both the scripture you quoted and CC paragraphs. I’m not sure how they are relavent to the discussion but love them just the same.

If you are trying to assert that there is love when we correct our misguided brethren, I agree. We mustn’t condone or endorse sinful behaviour. And sometimes our correction of our fallen brethren is delivered w/ a harshness of tone. And othertimes, it is to be delivered w/ a Fransiscan tone: “Always preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words.”

 

[mike182d]

Upon further reflection, the title of this thread is a bit misleading. It should read:

“Should liberals be allowed back into the Catholic Church?”

If they dissent from the Church over fundamental points of doctrine, they have already excommunicated themselves. It does not require a proclomation of the Church to get them to “leave.”

The larger question is, should dissenters from the teachings of the Catholic Church still be allowed to pose as authentic Catholics?

 

[Orionthehunter]

mike182d:

Upon further reflection, the title of this thread is a bit misleading. It should read:

“Should liberals be allowed back into the Catholic Church?”

If they dissent from the Church over fundamental points of doctrine, they have already excommunicated themselves. It does not require a proclomation of the Church to get them to “leave.”

The larger question is, should dissenters from the teachings of the Catholic Church still be allowed to pose as authentic Catholics?

To your question about being allowed into the Church, sinners are always welcome to come back to the Church.

Regarding your “larger question”, Bishops rightly and appropriately have the authority to determine this. They have to factor in not only the eternal consequences to the flock and the dissenter as well as the gravity of the situation.

For instance, John Kerry’s abortion views probably is cause for discussion between him and his Bishop. A lay person who personally holds the opinion and even articulates this position to the Bishop that abortion should be legally prohibited would likely not result in formal excommunication.

And in both cases, if the Bishop determines that both hearts remain sufficiently open to the workings of the Holy Spirit and not hopelessly closed, the Bishop might determine that the best spiritual action is to allow the person to publicly remain within the Church (your self-excommunication point is a good one but only the person themself and God knows if it applies based on intent, knowledge and consent) to allow the workings of the Holy Spirit to have more fertile ground to convert the person’s heart.

 

[mikew262]

mike182d:

Of course. In humility, what reason do I have not to be?

I believe he was asking me. However, I’m sure he liked your answer better than mine.

 

[mike182d]

mikew262:

I believe he was asking me. However, I’m sure he liked your answer better than mine.

LOL. I think our sign-on names are too similar.

 

[mikew262]

Orionthehunter:

Oh my!!! This morning at Eucharistic Adoration, I reflected on Mathew 7 (I know I’m a day late as that was yesterday’s devotion ) which is the “judge not, lest thee be judged” teaching. Despite being described by those who know me as politically and religiously conservative, I don’t think we are being good witnesses of the Good News by calling people who hold liberal views as “poisonous weeds”. We are called to find Christ in everyone, especially in those it is hard to see Him in them and we are called to be Christ to them. Christ didn’t convert Mary Magdelan by calling her a raving slut but by showing her His love.

James, do you really think this tone will draw people who hold views outside the Teaching closer to the Truth?

Good post!

 

[mike182d]

Orionthehunter:

To your question about being allowed into the Church, sinners are always welcome to come back to the Church.

Absolutely. But its hard for a sinner to come back when they’re told they never really “left.”

Regarding your “larger question”, Bishops rightly and appropriately have the authority to determine this. They have to factor in not only the eternal consequences to the flock and the dissenter as well as the gravity of the situation.

For instance, John Kerry’s abortion views probably is cause for discussion between him and his Bishop. A lay person who personally holds the opinion and even articulates this position to the Bishop that abortion should be legally prohibited would likely not result in formal excommunication.

And in both cases, if the Bishop determines that both hearts remain sufficiently open to the workings of the Holy Spirit and not hopelessly closed, the Bishop might determine that the best spiritual action is to allow the person to publicly remain within the Church (your self-excommunication point is a good one but only the person themself and God knows if it applies based on intent, knowledge and consent) to allow the workings of the Holy Spirit to have more fertile ground to convert the person’s heart.

Absolutely. However, the Truths of the Catholic faith are not dependent upon the subject understanding of a particular Bishop, they are objective by their very nature. And thus, the only point I was trying to make is that whether or not a person dissenting from fundamental points of doctrine has “left” the Church is not, necessarily, dependent upon a member of the Heirarchy formally making it so.

Although, formal proclamations certainly help clarify Church teaching for the rest of the faithful!

 

[mikew262]

JamesG:

Yes that is true, but I like to point out that they already have a judge and his name is Jesus.

Then why don’t we just leave it to him. Seems like there are alot of folks that are trying to take that job from him.

 

[Zeke2517]

I’m liberal and was born and raised a catholic. While I don’t find myself going to church as often as I used to I still beleive in some of the things I was brought up on.

The problems I have are with some of the older rules of the catholic religion such as celibacy, abotion and birth control. These rules apply to people living in a different time not for the present.

 

[JamesG]

Orionthehunter:

To your question about being allowed into the Church, sinners are always welcome to come back to the Church.

Regarding your “larger question”, Bishops rightly and appropriately have the authority to determine this. They have to factor in not only the eternal consequences to the flock and the dissenter as well as the gravity of the situation.

The more important perspective is that each of us MUST factor the eternal consequences because we are either part of the flock or we are not.

Why do you continue to suggest that you can be both?

For instance, John Kerry’s abortion views probably is cause for discussion between him and his Bishop. A lay person who personally holds the opinion and even articulates this position to the Bishop that abortion should be legally prohibited would likely not result in formal excommunication.

John Kerry is not a catholic he is weed. That is perhaps the best example I can think of. I wonder how many good catholics he has liberalized. He is a role model for others to reject the teachings of Christ. If that isn’t poison I don’t know what is.

And in both cases, if the Bishop determines that both hearts remain sufficiently open to the workings of the Holy Spirit and not hopelessly closed, the Bishop might determine that the best spiritual action is to allow the person to publicly remain within the Church (your self-excommunication point is a good one but only the person themself and God knows if it applies based on intent, knowledge and consent) to allow the workings of the Holy Spirit to have more fertile ground to convert the person’s heart.

I find that the Holy Spirt works when you let the truth be known. when you make it clear to people what the truth is you plant a seed in their hearts.
If it causes them to feel bad then that is a good. They are realizing their errors and are no longer blind to the truth.

If you read the Gospel and you feel bad for what you have done then for the love of God you should!

 

[JamesG]

mikew262:

Then why don’t we just leave it to him. Seems like there are alot of folks that are trying to take that job from him.

We should not judge or condem. BUT we have a great responsibility to let the truth be known. All you have to do is quote what Christ says and the errors of their ways will be known.