Should liberals leave the catholic church?

[Kristopher]

Dear Penny Plain, et. al.:

I appreciate your point: knowledge of what we commonly agree as Christians–makes us Christians: The Apostle’s Creed, The Nicene Creed, and the other creed unfamiliar to me, yet very Catholic–such knowledge of these elements need not be based on empirical evidence, but faith, which provides us with certain as opposed to dubious, knowledge concerning those articles of The Apostles Creed through “inspiration” for lack of a better word, and no doubt grace.

However, I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas in his “Summa Theologica” stated the following rough paraphrase, or basic point: faith always will be found substantiated by science–no contradiction between the two may exist.

I think that splitting hairs over the meaning of the word “feeling” by some members is an important distinction at times, however, with respect to faith: not the sort of faith imparted to us through papal succession, but the sort of faith imparted to us by “inspiration”, by grace–the word “feeling” more than adequately conveys the point that knowledge need not be gained only by means of what we inductively, and of what we deductively reason from knowable objects; though, I would have to allow for the thought that faith as a matter of grace, and of “inspiration” exist only for the reason that The Holy Trinity is knowable–the words “faith” and “imagination” are not synonyms, but antonyms, because imagination makes no distinction between what is real, and what is itself; whereas, to repeat myself: knowledge obtained through faith is certain, and therefore reality.

Were it necessary to believe that the only acceptable means available for faith to exist were those available to us through the scientific method, many of us would be guiltily partaking of communion in a sinful state not having confessed doubt, but on the other hand what might not exist as doubt, might certainly exist as agnosticism within Catholicism as one would certainly be educated, though, unknowingly for the reason: much of what we accept as a matter of faith would remain unknown to us, if and only if the only acceptable means to obtain knowledge were rooted in the scientific method.

Penny Plain, apparently you are leaving open the questions: did Jesus know that he was God? Did Jesus imagine that he was God? Do we in fact have a rational basis to deduce that scripture may be taken literally on this point, and if literature may be taken literally on this point, then have we also demonstrated this literal point to be a truth existing only as some logical construct such as an allegory? The Catholic Church never to my understanding compiled the Bible with the intent that all of it be taken literally word-for-word, but it is to be taken as a compilation of a body of literature not only rhetorical, but also propositional to the affirmative and to the negative.

I have to go now.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[mike182d]

mikew262:

A “moderate” is a person who thinks for himself/herself, and makes a decision based on the issue at hand, not on whether they adhere to a liberal or a conservative agenda.

Has anyone on this thread noted that the word “heresy” actually comes from the Greek word meaning “choice?”

We are not free to choose what we want to believe as true.

 

[mike182d]

Here are sufficient definitions for liberal and conservative Catholicism:

Liberal Catholicism - an attempt to reconcile the teachings of the Church with one’s own personal beliefs.

Conservative Catholicism - conforming themselves to the teachings of the Church regardless of their personal beliefs.

Would you say these definitions are accurate? Which did Jesus advocate in the Gospels?

 

[JSmitty2005]

mike182d:

Here are sufficient definitions for liberal and conservative Catholicism:

Liberal Catholicism - an attempt to reconcile the teachings of the Church with one’s own personal beliefs.

Conservative Catholicism - conforming themselves to the teachings of the Church regardless of their personal beliefs.

Would you say these definitions are accurate? Which did Jesus advocate in the Gospels?

I would say that those definitions pretty much hit the nail on the head.

 

[Isidore_AK]

mike182d:

Has anyone on this thread noted that the word “heresy” actually comes from the Greek word meaning “choice?”

We are not free to choose what we want to believe as true.

Well, you should have, since its at the bottom of every one of my posts!

…hmm…unless, of course, everyone has me blocked!

 

[patg]

JamesG:

ILiberals… if you think for yourself then please explain to me why you only listen to ‘some’ of the teachings of Christ and not all?

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.

 

[buffalo]

Penny Plain:

Okay. So if liberals are those who assert their own rights (G.C.'s definition, not mine), does that make you a liberal, Buffalo?

I don’t think so because the right to a true liturgy has been given by God, same as my right to life. So asserting my rights would not make me liberal in that sense.

 

[buffalo]

JSmitty2005:

“Is it a problem to permit today again the Latin Mass which was for so long a time the standard?” - Cardinal Darío Castrillon-Hoyos

No. THe Latin Mass is valid. I am speaking of liturgical abuses and innovations.

 

[mike182d]

Isidore_AK:

Well, you should have, since its at the bottom of every one of my posts!

…hmm…unless, of course, everyone has me blocked!

Wow. The things I miss in my ignorance.

 

[buffalo]

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.

There is one BIG difference here - Jesus is God, we are not.

 

[patg]

buffalo:

There is one BIG difference here - Jesus is God, we are not.

Like I said, I listen to the teachings of Jesus.

 

[mike182d]

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 know, initially I was going through your post and had a response for each item, when it finally hit me: that would have been entirely unnecessary in refuting every single point you make. Why? It’s right from the mouth of Christ in Scripture:

Matthew 16:18-19

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Christ gave Peter and the Apostles the authority to “bind and loose” on earth and such decisions would be binding in heaven. He didn’t give that to me, you, or anybody else but the Apostles. Thus, when the Apostles, and the successors they appointed, make a decision, it is binding on earth as it is in heaven.

Whether or not Christ said you had to go to Mass or go to confession regularly or that Latin is to be the official language of the Church is entirely irrelevant. He gave the Apostles the authority to make those decisions and, in so far as we respect the decisions of Christ, we are bound to obey the Magesterium.

I mean, seriously, think about it. Jesus Christ *never *told anyone to write down an account of His life or compile an addition to the Hebrew Scriptures known as the New Testament. And yet, for some odd reason, you believe it to be authoritative and true.

If you minimize Christianity to *only *what Jesus Christ said and commanded, you are left with a very bland version of Christianity: no Scripture, no organized worship, no one to administer the Sacrements Christ died to give us, etc.

 

[mike182d]

patg:

Like I said, I listen to the teachings of Jesus.

Were you there when Jesus was alive?

I just ask because I’m curious as to how you know what Jesus taught and how you know it to be true.

 

[JSmitty2005]

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.

 

[mike182d]

patg:

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.

Is this before or after Christ says “I have not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it?”

 

[JSmitty2005]

patg:

Like I said, I listen to the teachings of Jesus.

Not if you reject the teacings of His Church.
He said listen to the pillar and foundation of truth or you’re a heathen.
It’s as simple as that.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Penny Plain:

Okay. So if liberals are those who assert their own rights (G.C.'s definition, not mine), does that make you a liberal, Buffalo?

Rights.

 

[vern_humphrey]

frommi:

Wait a second…so under you image of the Catholic church…you can’t go against the magisterium…unless your told its ok?

Do you understand the Catholic Church? The Church allows lattitude in many areas – for example, you can believe in evolution or not.

You cannot, however formally participate in an abortion.

frommi:

What exactly was the church teaching when the said Gaillelo was a heretic? What was the church teaching prior to Vatican II when we had Jews equated with Christ killers in many cases?

I think those might be considered errors.

Show me where the Magisterium taught either of these things.

 

[buffalo]

patg:

Like I said, I listen to the teachings of Jesus.

Then you must also listen and accept the fact He gave power to the Church.

 

[frommi]

vern humphrey:

Do you understand the Catholic Church? The Church allows lattitude in many areas – for example, you can believe in evolution or not.

You cannot, however formally participate in an abortion.

Show me where the Magisterium taught either of these things.

Can you please define the ‘magisterium’ was you see it?

Because I don’t understand…

You seem to be picking and choosing what you’ll follow and believe.

If the magisterium didnt teach these things about Galielo and the Jews…why in the world did JPII apologize for them?