Should liberals leave the catholic church?

[patg]

mike182d:

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

Why would that matter? He fulfilled it quite liberally.

 

[patg]

mike182d:

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.

I was careful to specifically preface my remarks with the phrase *“the documented teachings of Christ”. *The only documentation is that in the gospels.

 

[mike182d]

patg:

Why would that matter? He fulfilled it quite liberally.

Wow. He fulfilled it quite liberally? What on earth does that mean?

It matters because “abolish” isn’t the same thing as “fulfill.” Christ did not come to abolish the Law and traditions of Judaism, He came to fulfill them, or rather, give them purpose. When we celebrate the Eucharist, we are still celebrating the Passover feast of the Jews but in the manner in which Christ fulfilled the meaning of the Passover with His death and resurrection.

Remember when the Jews question Him about fasting and why His apostles dont’ fast? He doesn’t say “believers of me have no need for your tradition and rules” He says “in time, they will fast, but not while the bridegroom is with them.”

Fulfillment of the Law is not removal of the Law.

 

[mike182d]

patg:

I was careful to specifically preface my remarks with the phrase *“the documented teachings of Christ”. *The only documentation is that in the gospels.

Which Gospels would that be? The Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdelene, or the Gospels proclaimed to be the infallible Word of God by the authority of the Catholic Church?

 

[patg]

buffalo:

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

We may choose to do that BUT I was specifically responding to the following question:

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

and I said that I followed the “teachings of Christ”. Many here seem to assume that everything the church says is a teaching of Christ and I was giving some examples to the contrary.

The equating of liberalism with opposition to things which are *not *teachings of Christ and then calling it a sin is pretty poor reasoning.

 

[mike182d]

patg:

The equating of liberalism with opposition to things which are *not *teachings of Christ and then calling it a sin is pretty poor reasoning.

What we know as the true teachings of Jesus Christ are those proclaimed to be the real teachings of Christ by the Catholic Church. Thus, to believe the authority of the Gospels is to believe in the infallible authority of the Catholic Church.

Check and mate.

---

“Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.” [Indeed, I should not have believed the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church had not moved me].

St. Augustine, contra epist. Manichaei, I.1.

 

[patg]

mike182d:

Which Gospels would that be? The Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdelene, or the Gospels proclaimed to be the infallible Word of God by the authority of the Catholic Church?

I don’t mind sticking with the Big 4 but I’ve certainly investigated the others. I don’t understand what you are questioning - are you asking whether the “teachings of Christ” are different outside the Big 4? I can easily see why these 4 were chosen although I agree with those who think John doesn’t really belong there.

 

[buffalo]

patg:

We may choose to do that BUT I was specifically responding to the following question:

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

and I said that I followed the “teachings of Christ”. Many here seem to assume that everything the church says is a teaching of Christ and I was giving some examples to the contrary.

The equating of liberalism with opposition to things which are *not *teachings of Christ and then calling it a sin is pretty poor reasoning.

If I am getting this right you are saying that discussion is OK for disciplines of the Church?

 

[mike182d]

patg:

I don’t mind sticking with the Big 4 but I’ve certainly investigated the others. I don’t understand what you are questioning - are you asking whether the “teachings of Christ” are different outside the Big 4? I can easily see why these 4 were chosen although I agree with those who think John doesn’t really belong there.

What I am saying is that there is no reason to praise the “Big 4” over the other Gospels - unless you adhere to the authority of the Catholic Church that proclaimed “the Big 4” as actually being the teachings of Christ.

And the fact that you have an opinion over which books ought to be in the Bible and what ought not to be in the Bible is unbelievably arrogant for a human being existing 2000 years after the events occured, don’t you think?

 

[buffalo]

mike182d:

And the fact that you have an opinion over which books ought to be in the Bible and what ought not to be in the Bible is unbelievably arrogant for a human being existing 2000 years after the events occured, don’t you think?

I agree! :banghead: That is exactly the problem with modern biblical scholarship. It has an arrogance of looking back and deconstructing what the eyewitnesses wrote, a modernistic disbelief, a lack of faith. It also gives little credit to those who lived at the time to accurately pass on what they had been part of.

 

[patg]

mike182d:

What we know as the true teachings of Jesus Christ are those proclaimed to be the real teachings of Christ by the Catholic Church.

It doesn’t matter at all who proclaims what - the only documentation of the teachings of Christ is contained in the gospels. It’s nice that the church proclaims itself as the authority but we would still have the gospels without the church.

Thus, to believe the authority of the Gospels is to believe in the infallible authority of the Catholic Church.

That is a strange leap of logic. I can believe that the gospels relate the teachings of Christ regardless of what the church proclaims.

Check and mate.

Not in this game!

 

[JSmitty2005]

Rights.

“The world has heard enough of the so-called ‘rights of man.’
Let it hear something of the rights of God.”

Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Tametsi

 

[JSmitty2005]

buffalo:

the problem with modern biblical scholarship.

“There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of the ‘higher criticism,’ which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone. It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the Sacred Books; and this vaunted ‘higher criticism’ will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the Scripture the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracle, and of everything else that is outside the natural order.”

–Pope Leo XIII’s PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS

 

[JSmitty2005]

patg:

we would still have the gospels without the church.

I can believe that the gospels relate the teachings of Christ regardless of what the church proclaims.

Wrong yet again. Man, you’re really striking out today. You may want to read this.

 

[patg]

mike182d:

What I am saying is that there is no reason to praise the “Big 4” over the other Gospels - unless you adhere to the authority of the Catholic Church that proclaimed “the Big 4” as actually being the teachings of Christ.

Is there something wrong with a liberal agreeing with the church on something? Does that really offend you?

And the fact that you have an opinion over which books ought to be in the Bible and what ought not to be in the Bible is unbelievably arrogant for a human being existing 2000 years after the events occured, don’t you think?

Nope. Now I guess forming opinions is another liberal sin.

 

[patg]

JSmitty2005:

Wrong yet again. Man, you’re really striking out today. You may want to read this.

I’m striking out? I’m discussing a very specific comment about liberals and all you can point to is a piece of church propaganda by a rather strange organization?

 

[vern_humphrey]

patg:

It doesn’t matter at all who proclaims what - the only documentation of the teachings of Christ is contained in the gospels. It’s nice that the church proclaims itself as the authority but we would still have the gospels without the church.

So the epistles are bogus? Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude taught falsely?

patg:

That is a strange leap of logic. I can believe that the gospels relate the teachings of Christ regardless of what the church proclaims.

It’s an even stranger leap to assume that people who heard Christ personally, people who learned Christianity from others who heard Him personally are wrong, and someone two thousand years later is right.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[mike182d]

patg:

It doesn’t matter at all who proclaims what - the only documentation of the teachings of Christ is contained in the gospels. It’s nice that the church proclaims itself as the authority but we would still have the gospels without the church.

Which is exactly the belief that puts you in heresy and subsequently seperates you from the Catholic Church.

That is a strange leap of logic. I can believe that the gospels relate the teachings of Christ regardless of what the church proclaims.

Says who? Where did Christ say that?

 

[vern_humphrey]

frommi:

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

Because I don’t understand…

Your profile says you are Catholic. And you don’t understand what the Magisterium is?

**
Magisterium

(Latin: magister)

The office of teacher. In theology, it refers to the teaching office of the Church. This office was communicated to the Church formally by Christ, when He said: “Going, therefore teach ye all nations” (Matthew 28). The Church exercises this teaching power infallibly in matters of faith and morals, in virtue of the promise of Divine assistance given her by Christ, “And behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world” (Matthew 28). This command to teach and this promise of special assistance were given to the Apostles only. Therefore the actual holders of the teaching office in the Church are the pope and the bishops, as the successors of Saint Peter and the other Apostles. The pope and the bishops constitute the magisterium of the Church, or the Ecclesia Docens (the Church Teaching). The prerogative of teaching is exercised ordinarily, i.e., in the ordinary daily teaching of the Church, by the individual bishops. This goes on uninterruptedly throughout the years. The individual bishop as such (the Bishop of Rome, successor of Saint Peter, excepted) is not infallible. When all the bishops in the world agree in their teaching on a particular doctrine of faith or morals, which is not solemnly defined, this constitutes an infallible teaching of the Ecclesia Docens, because the Church as a whole cannot fall into error in these matters. The pope enjoys the prerogative of infallibility in his official capacity as successor of Saint Peter, and hence Supreme Pastor of the Church. When the pope solemnly defines a truth to be de fide for the whole Church this is called a solemn exercise of the magisterium. The pope may exercise this solemn prerogative either in conjunction with an aecumenical council, or on his own authority. This magisterial power of the Church Teaching involves a corresponding obligation on the part of the Church Hearing (Ecclesia Discens): “He that heareth you, heareth Me” (Luke 10). The faithful are obliged in virtue of the infallible teaching power (magisterium) of the Church Teaching, whether this power is exercised ordinarily or solemnly, to submit their understanding to the teaching of the Church. This is called the assent of faith.

New Catholic Dictionary​

---

---

**

frommi:

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

**

You seem to be bent on rejecting the Magisterium.

frommi:

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

How many more stock anti-Catholic arguments are you going to drag in here?

 

[mike182d]

patg:

I’m striking out? I’m discussing a very specific comment about liberals and all you can point to is a piece of church propaganda by a rather strange organization?

I’d prefer the Church’s “propoganda” over the propoganda of liberals who think they know more about Jesus Christ and God than the men and women who were actually there 2000 years ago.