Should liberals leave the catholic church?

[Penny_Plain]

vern humphrey:

Do you accept or reject the Magisterium?

I direct your attention to post #242. You’ve already asked this question. I’ve already answered it. To the extent that you don’t like the way I answered it, I am sorry, but it doesn’t change the fact that I have already answered it.

The question on the table is whether I am a “liberal” in the sense of the definition that Buffalo put out.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Penny Plain:

I direct your attention to post #242. You’ve already asked this question. I’ve already answered it. To the extent that you don’t like the way I answered it, I am sorry, but it doesn’t change the fact that I have already answered it.

The question on the table is whether I am a “liberal” in the sense of the definition that Buffalo put out.

I see where you avoided answering the question.

The Church’s Magisterium is the heart of the Church. One who cannot accept it, cannot fairly call himself Catholic.

Rejection of the Magisterium is called “Protestantism.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

frommi:

What exactly does this mean?

Does a liberal accept that there is a magisterium?

Does a liberal accept the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff?

The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. That which is declared de fide by the Magisterium must be accepted and believed by all Catholics.

To be Catholic, one must accept the infallible Magisterium.

Rejection of the Magisterium is called “Protestantism.”

 

[fix]

vern humphrey:

You are correct – in fact, the rejection of the Magisterium, carrying with it the idea that the individual can interpret the message of Christ for himself is a heresy called Protestantism.

I would argue it leads to a type of moral relativism where each person claims they are the final authority regarding right and wrong.

 

[mikew262]

Apocrypha:

I accept the Pope as the head, but dont always agree with him. And despite all that, to the chagrin of others I proclaim myself catholic and hope one day the church will lighten up on some issues but until then I aint working to try and force anything upon them to do so.

I suspect your position is shared by many Catholics, including me.

 

[mikew262]

vern humphrey:

Apocrypha:

Are you now or have you ever been a communist sympathizer? ]/quote]

Am not and never have been.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

You can’t respond with “yes” to “Do you accept the Magisterium?”
I think he answered you, if you read between the lines.

 

[vern_humphrey]

fix:

I would argue it leads to a type of moral relativism where each person claims they are the final authority regarding right and wrong.

That is the end result of Protestantism.

I point out that there are Protestant sects which make the individual the final authority on biblical exegesis – and hence on right and wrong. There are Protestant sects which advance the idea that once saved, an individual cannot through any sin lose salvation.

Those are all logical extensions of the basic Protestant rejection of the Magisterium.

 

[mikew262]

Penny Plain:

Am I a “liberal” in the sense of this thread?

Your opinions are similar to mine, and I consider myself a moderate, with a conservative lean.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mikew262:

vern humphrey:

I think he answered you, if you read between the lines.

Rejection of the Magisterium is such a serious matter that I will not read between the lines to accuse anyone of such a thing.

 

[mikew262]

vern humphrey:

You are correct – in fact, the rejection of the Magisterium, carrying with it the idea that the individual can interpret the message of Christ for himself is a heresy called Protestantism.

I don’t think anybody mentioned the word “rejecting”. One may disagree, without rejecting. This is not heresy. Careful how you use that word. There are great many Christians who think you are a heretic for being a Catholic. Of course, that isn’t true, but many people throw that word around irresponsibly.

 

[patg]

Apocrypha:

For Penny Plain & PatG

Though I dont agree with all you guys have said, some of it I do and like a few others on this forum I 100% “think” I understand where you’re coming from and feel much the same way and offer my support to you!

Thanks. I pretty much dropped out of this discussion because:

1. 
   *]I’ve answered the original question and supported my position
   *]I haven’t read anything logical by those who are telling me how terrible that position is that would prompt me to change it
   
   As an aside not meant to change the direction of the discussion, I understand the statements about the magesterium but I don’t see how one can so easily give it the absolute faith and belief some claim they have. The catechism only says that it is made up of the bishops and the pope - that’s pretty much it. How do they reach a decision? Why don’t we see the different opinions and get some feel for the way the issue was dealth with? How did my bishop “vote” or what (name removed by moderator)ut did they have? I personally know a member of the magesterium (according to the catechism definition) and I know that he disagrees with some of the proclamations. How many others are in his situation? How does the pope railroad through his agenda when there is considerable disagreement? Maybe an understanding of all this would help…Maybe…

 

[buffalo]

Penny Plain:

Okay. Diagnose me. Am I a liberal?

Don’t agree with this. Humanity is not independent of God, but it is up to individual humans to discern the will of God and behave accordingly.

I don’t know what this means.

Disagree. I agree with the American system, in which the popular will is checked by constitutional principles and an independent judiciary that uses those principles to determine which expressions of the popular will (in the form of laws) are to be given effect and which are not.

I also disagree that the laws of society and constitutional principles should be determined solely by recourse to religious authority, whether that authority is Catholic, Islamic, or something else. That does not mean that principles espoused by religion should not be enacted into law, but they should not be enacted into law solely because they are religious principles.

Again, I’m not sure what this means. I think people should be free to choose the religion that best captures their perception of God and allows for the expression of and conformance to his will. That holds true even if the religion is repellent.

Freedom of thought as to morals? Hmm. I think the law regulates actions, and a person should be free (in a legal sense) to think that she wishes that her mother in law would fall down a well, for example. The law draws the line at pushing her in, or maybe at luring her in. The law allows you to think what you like, but it does not allow you to do as you like.

I don’t think anyone argues otherwise.

As for “unrestrained liberty of the press,” I’m pretty sure that nobody in the world argues for that. Even the American First Amendment recognizes there are limits on the liberty of the press – libel, for instance.

As to the other things:

I think people should be free to worship as they please. Don’t you?

I don’t think the state should be absolutely supreme.

I think secular education should not espouse the point of view of any religion, but I think it should give children a basic grounding in the views of all major religions. I think secular education should not be complusory, and it is not.

Marriage is more complicated. I think the State has an interest in determining what is a legal marriage because many important rights stem from that. The state has no business determining what constitutes a sacramental marriage (and it has never tried to, as far as I know, in the US), nor does any religious entity have any business in determining what constitutes a legal marriage.

Am I a “liberal” in the sense of this thread?

Click on the link and read the whole tract. Then you could answer the question yourself.

Liberalism is a Sin

 

[mikew262]

vern humphrey:

The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. That which is declared de fide by the Magisterium must be accepted and believed by all Catholics.

To be Catholic, one must accept the infallible Magisterium.

Rejection of the Magisterium is called “Protestantism.”

Lets be careful here. You have no authority on judging whether a person is a good Catholic or not.

 

[mikew262]

vern humphrey:

mikew262:

Rejection of the Magisterium is such a serious matter that I will not read between the lines to accuse anyone of such a thing.

You shouldn’t be accusing anybody, anyway.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mikew262:

I don’t think anybody mentioned the word “rejecting”. One may disagree, without rejecting.

When one does not accept the Magisterium, one rejects it.

The Magisterium is not like the Half-Way Covenent. It is a direct commission by God to his Church.

One may disagree in those areas where the Magisterium permits disagreement, but not in those things which are pronounced infallibly.

For example, Benedict XVI (while he was Cardinal) pointed out that one may disagree on matters of war and the death penalty, but not on abortion.

mikew262:

This is not heresy. Careful how you use that word. There are great many Christians who think you are a heretic for being a Catholic. Of course, that isn’t true, but many people throw that word around irresponsibly.

What do I care what non-Catholics think? I follow the Magisterium.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mikew262:

Lets be careful here. You have no authority on judging whether a person is a good Catholic or not.

Do you claim that a faithful Catholic can in good conscience reject the Magisterium?

 

[buffalo]

Tradition, The Magisterium and Scripture are the three legged stool of Catholicism. Remove one leg and you are not Catholic.

 

[rlg94086]

patg:

The catechism only says that it is made up of the bishops and the pope - that’s pretty much it. How do they reach a decision? Why don’t we see the different opinions and get some feel for the way the issue was dealth with? How did my bishop “vote” or what (name removed by moderator)ut did they have? I personally know a member of the magesterium (according to the catechism definition) and I know that he disagrees with some of the proclamations. How many others are in his situation? How does the pope railroad through his agenda when there is considerable disagreement? Maybe an understanding of all this would help…Maybe…

 

[rlg94086]

Hi Patg,

Here are some answers to some of your questions:
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9007qq.asp

Q: I keep hearing about the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. What’s the difference, besides one being ordinary and the other extraordinary?

A: Jesus commanded his apostles to teach his gospel to all nations until the end of time (Matt. 28:19-20). The magisterium of the Church refers to the teaching authority he gave to his apostles and through them to their successors, the bishops of the Church united with the Pope, the successor of Peter.

The ordinary magisterium refers to the normal manner by which the bishops instruct the faithful–the daily preaching of the gospel, their oversight of the catechetical formation in their dioceses, the issuance of pastoral letters, developing diocesan guidelines on prayer and worship, and so on.

Not everything taught by the ordinary magisterium of the Church is infallible–absolutely free from even the possibility of error due to the Holy Spirit’s safeguard–but much is. On this point, Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church states:

“Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that among themselves and with Peter’s successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely” (Lumen Gentium, no. 25).

The extraordinary magisterium of the Church can also teach infallibly. There are two forms of the extraordinary magisterium.

First, there’s the teaching of an ecumenical council. We’ve had 21 of them in the history of the Church, the most recent being Vatican II. This form of magisterial teaching occurs when the bishops of the Church assembled in council, with the pope as the head of the episcopal college, define a teaching on matters of faith and morals. In such circumstances their teaching is infallible.

The second form of the extraordinary magisterium is an ex cathedra pronouncement from the pope. This is papal infallibility. Vatican II described papal infallibility this way:

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful–who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Luke 22:32)–he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals.

“For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, inasmuch as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself” (Lumen Gentium, no. 25).

In addition to infallible teaching by the magisterium, there’s also what is often called “authentic teaching,” teaching which hasn’t been presented infallibly by the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, but which is still authoritative and to be accepted by Catholics.

In speaking of “authentic teaching,” Vatican II declared:

"Bishops teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. When their bishop speaks in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals, the faithful are to accept his teaching with a religious assent of soul.

“This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence and the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will” (Lumen Gentium, no. 25).

 

[rlg94086]

And yet more…
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907qq.asp

Q: According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “knowledge of revealed truth” is “deepened” by “theological research” and by “the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience” (CCC 94). I thought that the Magisterium was the authentic interpreter of Scripture, and that private interpretation was taboo.

A: There is no conflict between the work of exegetes, scholars, and believers in exploring the meaning of Scripture on the one hand, and the work of the Magisterium in authentically defining the meaning of Scripture on the other hand.

Exegetes and believers must not pit their private judgment *against *the mind of the Church, or treat their methods as the ultimate arbiters of what Scripture can or cannot mean (this is what is meant by “private interpretation”). But that doesn’t mean that ordinary Catholics and Scripture scholars cannot use their intellects to probe the meaning of Scripture.

Indeed, Scripture is so rich that even when a given passage *has *been authoritatively connected with a certain doctrine, that does not remove that passage from the sphere of scientific or devotional inquiry. We can interpret and explore Scripture, just not in a way that contradicts what has been defined concerning it.

There is an interrelationship between the work of exegetes and believers and the work of the Magisterium. It is the Magisterium’s task to be the arbiter of whether or not a given theological idea belongs to the Catholic faith. But where does the theological idea come from in the first place? Who thinks of it, formulates it, develops it, and expresses it? Bishops, yes, but also priests, saints, scholars, even ordinary believers.

All of us, bringing our spiritual and critical faculties to the sources of faith (Scripture and Tradition) in a spirit of humility and docility to the teaching authority of the Church, may explore the meaning of divine revelation for ourselves.

Obviously, any interpretation we arrive at must not contradict what has already been defined as Catholic truth. That is why God gave the Church the power of defining things; to keep us from going wrong. We must be willing to submit our interpretations to the judgment of the Magisterium.

But it would be a mistake to think that we are limited to parroting what the Magisterium has *already *defined. That would be a recipe for crippling the ongoing development of doctrine which continually enriches our faith and unfolds the glories of that which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Steven D. Greydanus