Should liberals leave the catholic church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mijoy2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mikew262:
If one relys solely on the Church hierarchy, you better hope they get it right. Granted, there are many wise, holy, and educated men in the Church Hierarchy, but they are still only human, subject to error.
Click to expand...
As I used to tell Second Lieutenants, when you start arguing with the compass, you’re lost.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
vern humphrey:
We don’t rely on “feeling.” We rely on the Apostolic Constituitions of the Church, the Traditions, Scripture and Magisterium.
Click to expand...
Which we feel to be reliable, right?

I think it’s the way that you throw around the word “feeling” that sets off the smoke detector in my … uh … faded yellow sweatpants. I agree that some feelings are reliable and others are not. I feel that if somebody hits me on the head with a mallet, it’s going to hurt. You feel that it won’t. Empirical testing will reveal a truth: Getting hit on the head with a mallet hurts. If you don’t believe me, step over here for a minute.

I’m going to leave out a lot of steps here, but we all know I’m a heretic anyway, right? 😃 Don’t tell the bishop.

You rely on the Magisterium. (Not solely, but you do rely on it.) That reliance is based on the idea that the bishops are the apostolic successors to Peter and his boys. It’s also based Christ’s words about binding and loosing, as well as the traditions of the Church.

There’s a number of assumptions that are inherent in your reliance. I’ll list a few:
  1. The Gospels are reliable accounts of the life of Jesus Christ.
  2. Jesus existed and actually was the Son of God.
  3. Jesus actually said to Peter, “Whatever you hold bound on earth…”
  4. When Jesus said that, He meant that Peter had the power to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals.
  5. When Jesus said that, He also meant that the power to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals would descend from Peter to his successors and to the successors of the apostles.
  6. Pope Benedict is the successor to Peter.
  7. The Magisterium is the successor to the apostles.
I could go on. Heck, I probably will, but you see my point, don’t you? Few of these things are open to empirical demonstration in the same way that my mallet example is.

I think there’s good evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. After that, it gets a bit murky; we see through a glass darkly, as it were. Is there a right answer and wrong answer? Well, yeah. Either Jesus was the Son of God, or He wasn’t. We can’t prove it one way or the other in this life.

You feel quite strongly that these propositions are all true. That’s fine, you’re certainly in good company. They are positions that a reasonable person can hold. But you can’t prove them, and they’re ultimately based on a feeling or a belief or something that’s murky and not susceptible to empirical demonstration.
 
40.png
frommi:
Well…I think when we had two popes…that was a problem…
Click to expand...
“We” never had two popes.
40.png
frommi:
Maybe when it was a sin to charge interest on borrowed money?
Click to expand...
You’re confused. Excessive interest only is condemned. Matthew 25, 26-27
26 His master said to him in reply, 'You wicked, lazy servant! 11 So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter? 27 Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return?
Click to expand...
40.png
frommi:
When slavery was an ok thing?
Click to expand...
When was that? Did the Church endorse slavery, or only recognize that the institution existed?
40.png
frommi:
The key to any of these things is that none were spoken of (as they say) ‘from the chair’.

The number of infallible teachings from the magisterium is pretty low when you think about it.

That doesn’t mean we ignore all the other stuff simply because it isn’t infallible, but lets face it, to act as though we’ve sown up the truth and put it in our back pocket is a horrible type of intellctual marxism.
Click to expand...
Read what you just read.
The number of infallible teachings from the magisterium is pretty low when you think about it.
Click to expand...
To claim otherwise is to say that which is not true. The Church is very careful about what is promulgated under the Magisterium – but when something is declared de fide, all Catholics are obliged to accept and believe.
 
40.png
frommi:
Well…I think when we had two popes…that was a problem…

Maybe when it was a sin to charge interest on borrowed money?

When slavery was an ok thing?

The key to any of these things is that none were spoken of (as they say) ‘from the chair’.

The number of infallible teachings from the magisterium is pretty low when you think about it.

That doesn’t mean we ignore all the other stuff simply because it isn’t infallible, but lets face it, to act as though we’ve sown up the truth and put it in our back pocket is a horrible type of intellctual marxism.
Click to expand...
Catholics believe we possess the “fullness” of truth. God alone possesses all truth.

Never had two Popes.

Usury and slavery - A RESPONSE TO JOHN T. NOONAN, JR. CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF CATHOLIC MORAL DOCTRINE
 
Penny Plain:
Which we feel to be reliable, right?
Click to expand...
No, we don’t “feel” anymore than we “feel” 2+2=4.

We rely on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, just as in math we rely on the axioms.
Penny Plain:
I think it’s the way that you throw around the word “feeling” that sets off the smoke detector in my … uh … faded yellow sweatpants. I agree that some feelings are reliable and others are not. I feel that if somebody hits me on the head with a mallet, it’s going to hurt. You feel that it won’t. Empirical testing will reveal a truth: Getting hit on the head with a mallet hurts. If you don’t believe me, step over here for a minute.
Click to expand...
Why are you so hepped on “feelings?”
Penny Plain:
You rely on the Magisterium. (Not solely, but you do rely on it.) That reliance is based on the idea that the bishops are the apostolic successors to Peter and his boys. It’s also based Christ’s words about binding and loosing, as well as the traditions of the Church.

There’s a number of assumptions that are inherent in your reliance. I’ll list a few:
  1. The Gospels are reliable accounts of the life of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
If you reject this, you reject the validity of scripture…
Penny Plain:
  1. Jesus existed and actually was the Son of God.
Click to expand...
If you reject this, you reject Christianity en toto.
Penny Plain:
  1. Jesus actually said to Peter, “Whatever you hold bound on earth…”
  2. When Jesus said that, He meant that Peter had the power to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
If you reject this, you reject the entire concept of Christ’s Church.
Penny Plain:
  1. When Jesus said that, He also meant that the power to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals would descend from Peter to his successors and to the successors of the apostles.
  2. Pope Benedict is the successor to Peter.
  3. The Magisterium is the successor to the apostles.
I could go on. Heck, I probably will, but you see my point, don’t you? Few of these things are open to empirical demonstration in the same way that my mallet example is.
Click to expand...
And what does all that mean? Do you reject all the points you outlined above?

If you do, you have rejected Christianity. In that case, we have nothing more to discuss.
Penny Plain:
I think there’s good evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. After that, it gets a bit murky; we see through a glass darkly, as it were. Is there a right answer and wrong answer? Well, yeah. Either Jesus was the Son of God, or He wasn’t. We can’t prove it one way or the other in this life.

You feel quite strongly that these propositions are all true. That’s fine, you’re certainly in good company. They are positions that a reasonable person can hold. But you can’t prove them, and they’re ultimately based on a feeling or a belief or something that’s murky and not susceptible to empirical demonstration.
Click to expand...
Are you holding God to empirical proof?
 
Why should liberals leave the church? Homosexuality is not condemned by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but an indifferent attitude toward homosexuality and sensitivity and encouragement to bear the cross of homosexuality with patience are encouraged by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I read recently at Eternal Word TV Network (EWTN) that who was Archbishop of San Francisco, Levada, who now works in the Vatican approved of adoptions provided to homosexual couples, now, this top Vatican official complies with his Church’s doctrine on the matter stating as was quoted earlier: adoptions to homosexual couples constitutes subjugation to violence–this of course encouraged me.

Why should anyone leave the Catholic Church–people would then not only criticize you for whatever fault had previously been cited, but would then claim such-and-such person truly lacked faith and therefore, left the church. When excommunicated the Catechism of the Catholic Church has recommended that the penitent continue to attend mass, daily, and confession regularly 'til excommunication is lifted at the discretion of a priest, or of a bishop as the situation will warrant it.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher
 
40.png
Kristopher:
Why should liberals leave the church? Homosexuality is not condemned by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but an indifferent attitude toward homosexuality and sensitivity and encouragement to bear the cross of homosexuality with patience are encouraged by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
The condition is not condemend, the act is.
 
40.png
Kristopher:
Why should liberals leave the church? Homosexuality is not condemned by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but an indifferent attitude toward homosexuality and sensitivity and encouragement to bear the cross of homosexuality with patience are encouraged by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I wouldn’t urge anyone to leave the Church.

At the same time, we all have an obligation to uphold the teachings of the Church – which is why I stress the Magisterium. As Catholics, we must accept the Magisterium – what the Church commands us to belive, we must believe. If we have difficulty, we must pray for belief.
40.png
Kristopher:
Why should anyone leave the Catholic Church–people would then not only criticize you for whatever fault had previously been cited, but would then claim such-and-such person truly lacked faith and therefore, left the church. When excommunicated the Catechism of the Catholic Church has recommended that the penitent continue to attend mass, daily, and confession regularly 'til excommunication is lifted at the discretion of a priest, or of a bishop as the situation will warrant it.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I follow all of your post – but formal excommunication is not the only form of excommunication. Many people are excommunicated latae sententenae – by their own acts.

We must pray for such people to return to the Church and to acceptance of the Magisterium.
 
Now, I understand. You are an Agnostic. There aren’t very many Agnostics who consider themselves Catholic, so you had me confused.
Penny Plain:
I think there’s good evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. After that, it gets a bit murky; we see through a glass darkly, as it were. Is there a right answer and wrong answer? Well, yeah. Either Jesus was the Son of God, or He wasn’t. We can’t prove it one way or the other in this life.

You feel quite strongly that these propositions are all true. That’s fine, you’re certainly in good company. They are positions that a reasonable person can hold. But you can’t prove them, and they’re ultimately based on a feeling or a belief or something that’s murky and not susceptible to empirical demonstration.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Mijoy2:
should liberals leave the catholic church?
Click to expand...
YES!
(duh!)

Karl Keating seemed to agree in his e-letter:

“Fair question. While Vennochi doesn’t say just what she herself will do, the implication is that it’s time to jump ship. Why remain with the Barque of Peter if it’s taking you where you don’t want to go?”

Oh, and I found this to be hilarious:

“Conservative Catholics hold the power, not just in Rome but in the United States.”
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Who are they kidding? American Catholics are more liberal than most any other Catholics in the world!..Not to mention the bishops that we’ve been blessed with. :eek: :rolleyes:
 
40.png
rlg94086:
Now, I understand. You are an Agnostic. There aren’t very many Agnostics who consider themselves Catholic, so you had me confused.
Click to expand...
“Catholic Agnostic.” Now there’s contradiction in terms!
 
Exactly. I was a devout 😛 Agnostic for many years. A Church that believes it has all the answers and is the source of Truth for this world is the antithesis of agnosticism.

vern humphrey said:
“Catholic Agnostic.” Now there’s contradiction in terms!
Click to expand...
 
40.png
rlg94086:
Now, I understand. You are an Agnostic. There aren’t very many Agnostics who consider themselves Catholic, so you had me confused.
Click to expand...
Uh … no.

You’re missing the point of the exercise.

One can still believe without proof. And one can feel them to be true, without proof. But one can’t prove them (or disprove them).
 
I see.

So, of the 7 assumptions you listed, do you believe any of them?
  1. The Gospels are reliable accounts of the life of Jesus Christ.
  2. Jesus existed and actually was the Son of God.
  3. Jesus actually said to Peter, “Whatever you hold bound on earth…”
  4. When Jesus said that, He meant that Peter had the power to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals.
  5. When Jesus said that, He also meant that the power to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals would descend from Peter to his successors and to the successors of the apostles.
  6. Pope Benedict is the successor to Peter.
  7. The Magisterium is the successor to the apostles.
You actually go further in your skepticism than the majority of Protestants do. 1-3 are actually believed by 99.9% of Christians.

Why do you think the early church fathers, such as Ignatius would be wrong about some of these things compared to your own discernment? Do you believe that it easier for us to discern the teachings of Jesus 2000 years after the fact than someone who was a bishop while some of the apostles were still alive?
Penny Plain:
Uh … no.

You’re missing the point of the exercise.

One can still believe without proof. And one can feel them to be true, without proof. But one can’t prove them (or disprove them).
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top