Should liberals leave the catholic church?

[vern_humphrey]

Penny Plain:

Vern, I think you’re due for a gentle reminder of the actual forum rules which, although not promulgated by the Magisterium, still apply to you. The PMs were funny, but you’re crossing a line with this stuff.

If you don’t like what we say, report us and see what happens.

Participants are reminded to refrain from using ad hominem remarks, such as calling other participants “trolls.” So long as discourse is civil, participants have the right to disagree with popular opinions and should not be called trolls as a ploy to marginalize their contributions to the forums. “Troll-busters” should report problematic posts to the moderation staff with the post-report function rather than applying the label to anyone. Future instances of public “troll-busting” will be treated like other instances of uncharity on the Catholic Answers Forums.

When a poster identifies himself or herself as a troll, it seems only fair that the rest of the posters be allowed to mention that.

 

[JSmitty2005]

vern humphrey:

When a poster identifies himself or herself as a troll, it seems only fair that the rest of the posters be allowed to mention that.

I’ll second that. :yup:

 

[rlg94086]

The strong rejection of Church authority and teaching really begs the question again…Why do people who don’t believe the Church has authority stay?

We pray the creed every Sunday. Do they believe what they pray, or are they just playing along?

Here’s what the Catechism says about it:

**Who belongs to the Catholic Church? **

836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God… And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”[320]

837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”[321]

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."[322] Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”[323] With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”[324]

The bolded portion refers to our Protestant brethren. If you read it closely, it also describes very well those who go to Mass even though they “do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety.”

Come to Mass, pray with us, search your heart and study Church documents, but you should not receive the Eucharist until you are in communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[mikew262]

JSmitty2005:

You’re a joke.

Uncalled for! This is a forum where should be able to discuss issues maturely without resorting to insults.

 

[JSmitty2005]

mikew262:

Uncalled for! This is a forum where should be able to discuss issues maturely without resorting to insults.

Oh give it up! Did you even read what I said?

JSmitty2005:

That was in response to a bishop’s scholarly work being branded “a piece of church propaganda by a rather strange organization.” No venom intended. Only calling a spade a spade.

 

[mikew262]

buffalo:

Nope! To be protected by the Holy Spirit and least enough must be open.

Huh? What does this mean?

 

[mikew262]

vern humphrey:

What we have here is anti-Catholic trolls pretending to be Catholics. I don’t recognize any specific fundamentalist/evangelical thread though (you can usually tell which sect you’re dealing with in cases like this.) This would indicate athiests.

Resorting to insults and borderline rudeness usually indicates the insulter has nothing else intelligent to add, and is probably losing the argument. Is this the case here?

 

[buffalo]

mikew262:

Huh? What does this mean?

Post #428.

Clarification:

Nope!

To be protected by the Holy Spirit enough of them must have been open to the Holy Spirit, even though some weren’t.

 

[buffalo]

mikew262:

Resorting to insults and borderline rudeness usually indicates the insulter has nothing else intelligent to add, and is probably losing the argument. Is this the case here?

Vern, I told you to layoff the brew.

 

[mikew262]

fix:

Can you give an example that explains this line of reasoning? I cannot see how one can “disagree” with a truth, yet not reject it?

Ok, we’ll start with a fairly benign one. No meat on Fridays during Lent.

I personally don’t think it really matters to God if we eat a hamburger or fish on Fridays during Lent. However, because I’m a Catholic, I still try to adhere to that rule (and so far, I’ve been successful).

I disagree with this particular rule, but I have not rejected it.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s fine. I don’t think anyone has a problem with that. Your situation is vastly different than those who do not recognize the authority of the Church.

mikew262:

Ok, we’ll start with a fairly benign one. No meat on Fridays during Lent.

I personally don’t think it really matters to God if we eat a hamburger or fish on Fridays during Lent. However, because I’m a Catholic, I still try to adhere to that rule (and so far, I’ve been successful).

I disagree with this particular rule, but I have not rejected it.

 

[buffalo]

mikew262:

Ok, we’ll start with a fairly benign one. No meat on Fridays during Lent.

I personally don’t think it really matters to God if we eat a hamburger or fish on Fridays during Lent. However, because I’m a Catholic, I still try to adhere to that rule (and so far, I’ve been successful).

I disagree with this particular rule, but I have not rejected it.

That is a discipline, not doctrine, not dogma.

 

[rlg94086]

buffalo:

That is a discipline, not doctrine, not dogma.

You would agree though, that even difficult doctrine or dogma can be disagreed with, as long as they are still followed out of obedience. Of course, one would also be careful in their explanation of their disagreement to others, so as not to lead them to sin.

 

[JSmitty2005]

rlg94086:

You would agree though, that even difficult doctrine or dogma can be disagreed with, as long as they are still followed out of obedience. Of course, one would also be careful in their explanation of their disagreement to others, so as not to lead them to sin.

No. The Catechism states that even doubt can constitute heresy.

 

[buffalo]

rlg94086:

You would agree though, that even difficult doctrine or dogma can be disagreed with, as long as they are still followed out of obedience. Of course, one would also be careful in their explanation of their disagreement to others, so as not to lead them to sin.

One should not do anything that would lead people away from the faith.

Disagreement indicates non-acceptance, even though obedient. Not good.

A misunderstanding of teaching or ignorance is sonething different.

 

[rlg94086]

I was unaware of that…where?

JSmitty2005:

No. The Catechism states that even doubt can constitute heresy.

 

[JSmitty2005]

rlg94086:

I was unaware of that…where?

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

 

[Writer]

patg:

Most people who consider themselves orthodox conservative catholics - are there any who argue that women should be priests or that priests should be allowed to marry? I haven’t met any.

Actually I put a lot of thought into it - I changed it from doctrines to disciplines just to make it a little less controversial. That’s what the 2 examples above are.

I think you are confusing pride with a search for answers and understanding. I’m not questioning because I think I know better, I’m questioning because I don’t understand and I don’t think people should have their lives ruled by something they don’t understand.

But, by that reasoning, how can you “understand” or fathom the mysteries of God and the Christian faith? If you only accept what you understand, you must either be far brighter than the rest of us, or you actually accept very little. How can you even “understand” the re-birth of spring–let alone the mystery of the Eucharist. Are we that enlightened as a species that we demand our God to explain and justify himself at each turn?

 

[buffalo]

Writer:

Are we that enlightened as a species that we demand our God to explain and justify himself at each turn?

Bingo! :banghead: Yes, we are enlightened indeed. It seems to me we are eating from the tree of knowledge (forbidden fruit) all over again.

 

[JamesG]

patg:

I listen to all the teachings of Christ. However, the documented teachings of Christ generally have nothing to do with what the liberal label is assumed to imply, especially among some on these forums. For example:

• Christ did not “teach” that women could not share in the ministry or power of the church or that having “altar girls” was somehow against the divine plan.
• He did not teach that one had to attend mass on Sunday, go to confession once a year, not eat meat on Fridays, that we should not hold hands during the Our Father, or that we should not greet our neighbors during the kiss of peace.
• He did not declare that only organ music was acceptable in church or that only songs written over 500 years ago were to be used. He did not teach against guitars.
• He did not declare Latin to be the language of worship.
• He did not teach that the bible was a literal history or science book or that the authors were forbidden to use myth, legends, or other fictions to teach truth.

I could go on for much longer, but you get the idea…

In actuality, he was a social and theological liberal who rejected most of his well-established Jewish religion’s “that’s the way we’ve always done it” mentality.

You are confused with what is a dogmatic teaching of Christ and what isn’t.

The following are not dogmatic teaches of Christ and the church knows it. Peter has the authority to change these things back and forth as many times as he wants.

• Organ music - my church doesn’t have organ music
• Mass in Latin - my church is in english. if it went back to latin it wouldn’t bother me.
• As for greeting you neighbor in church that is a question of your own conscious. If someone wants to shake your hand and you refuse what does that say about you? If it was Jesus trying to shake your hand would you refuse? There was also one time in church that the priest told us not to shake hands due to sars. So this isn’t a dogmatic quality.

The following are dogmatic qualities.

• The catholic church does not teach that the bible is a literal text at all. Maybe you didn’t know that. Each book in the bible must be understood from its context which includes its time in history, age of mans understanding, and style of writing.
• The Catholic church does not say that women can’t be priests. It states that it does not have the authority to change the structure of Christ’s church in this way. Christ did not teach that women should be the fathers of the church. Does it not make sense that if Christ wanted women to be priests that he would of said or done something to ensure that such a message lived on through the ages? After all he is God right? Would he not of picked an equal number of men and women for apostils? I think Christ understood the nature of men and women and he encuraged that behavour. Men and women are different for a reason. That means that we are different physically, mentally, and spirtually. Perhaps there is a spirtual difference that you don’t understand that enables men to be priests.
• Christ did no invalidate the Law of the OT. He in fact said that it should be written in your heart. So keeping the Sabbath day holy is still very important.

You will have to post many more of these liberal ideas that you have. Quite frankly your list was rather petty compared to what most liberals have issues with.

You also can’t justify rejecting dogmatic teachings from the Gospel by saying that you can reject innocuous church practices.