Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[jean8]

Recently, say over the past few weeks, a couple of Roman Catholics have expressed the opinion that the American church will split. Clearly the majority of RC’s, if one believes polling, both by independents and the UCCB itself, most Catholics for instance voted for Obama, and support various liberal issues. They practice birth control at a very high rate, and so forth.

Additionally, a larger number of RC’s on this forum have publically said that they wished that Catholics who don’t agree with their views of dogma (which they of course claim is the Church’s) would leave the church, even if it meant a majority of the American church left, leaving a very small RCC in America.

My question is how could this happen?

It seems to me that generally speaking when a minority is dissatisfied with the majority and the manner in which they operate, it is the minority which leaves. It certainly can’t force out the majority I wouldn’t think.

When so many here think that most of their brethren are “poorly” catecized, have poor priests who come from liberal seminaries and Cathollc colleges and universities, where most religious women are thought poorly of as being “liberal” etc. I can’t figure out how the minority can leave the church either.

Clearly the ultra conservatives here wish to remain aligned with Rome, and they would never consider any alternative that I can think of. Yet how can they remove the majority from the Church?

Or do most Catholics conservative or otherwise disagree that the liberals should get out of town?

I’m just wondering what Catholics think on this issue, or if they think about it at all.

As an Episcopalian, we have such a strange set up, that minorities that are unhappy with the majority of their congregation, have alternatives that allow them to remain in the some sense Episcopalian or Anglican. I don’t see this alternative for the RCC.

Spirit meadow,
I can’t believe any christian would vote for obama.
He’s for abortion, Gay marriage, whatever that is? There’s nothing gay about same sex unions of any kind. See 1Cor.6:14-18

I want to share this frigthning passage form the Bible. Heb.10:26 “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left. 27. but only a fearful expectation of judgement and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.”

Does this get your attention? it got mine. I think about it often, when I repent, everyday.
On a positive note, anyone who comes to the Lord and loves him (Rev 3:.20) Jesus said, “I will come in and eat with him and he with me.”

Isn’t God great.
God bless,
jean

 

[elts1956]

Like I’ve said before, the one trick political pony of many people can turn a discussion on how to make sponge cake into an abortion issue discussion. Which makes any other discussion about anything else impossible. There are other issues of concern as well but those of us who don’t have a one track mind on “abortion issue!” are vilified and attempts are made to strip them of their Catholicity.

It’s unfortunate.

That’s because Dear Gig, the Church in Rome and “some” Bishops faithful to Catholic doctrine deem ABORTION the prime evil of what is happening in the world today, just as faithful Catholics do here in the U.S. One cannot mention the name of (gag) Obama without thinking ABORTION.

 

[elts1956]

Like I’ve said before, the one trick political pony of many people can turn a discussion on how to make sponge cake into an abortion issue discussion. Which makes any other discussion about anything else impossible. There are other issues of concern as well but those of us who don’t have a one track mind on “abortion issue!” are vilified and attempts are made to strip them of their Catholicity.

It’s unfortunate.

I guess I’m kind of torn on this issue. I hear what you’re saying, but at the same time it kind of seems like the Vatican wants to “have their cake and eat it too”: they’ll make fine-sounding statements about how such-and-such teaching is mandatory (or “De Fide”, “binding on Catholics”, etc.); and yet there’s such a large percentage – even among Catholics who go to mass every week – who don’t believe it. (Not that all this justifies the let’s-kick-out-all-the-liberals mentality that some conservative Catholics have; I’m “just saying”.)

It would be interesting to see a poll of how many Catholics believe in all the Doctrines and Dogmas of the U.S and how many don’t to support your statement. Is it ONLY the fault of the Church that some “independent thinkers” no longer follow the Absolute truths of the Church?

 

[elts1956]

SpiritMeadow;[COLOR="DarkRed":

5337191]This thread is NOT about Obama. For the record Obama is not pro-abortion. And this is why he overturned the Mexico City Policy and I am paying taxes to fund abortions around the world. Oh, I get it now

. Nobody is. Pro choice is the term, and you use the former as a means to incite anger, I think. No such thing as pro choice. Doesn’t exist.You somehow claim that because Obama appoints pro-choice people he is anti-Catholic. I guess you forgot that the bible belt evangelical fundamentalists have been anti choice/abortion for at least as long as you have. Haven’t forgotten that at all. They are some our BEST supporters, thank you very much.
As I said, back on topic please.

 

[elts1956]

This thread is NOT about Obama. For the record Obama is not pro-abortion. Nobody is. Pro choice is the term, and you use the former as a means to incite anger, I think.

You somehow claim that because Obama appoints pro-choice people he is anti-Catholic. I guess you forgot that the bible belt evangelical fundamentalists have been anti choice/abortion for at least as long as you have.

As I said, back on topic please.

You are either more charitable than I am or live in an area more deeply rooted than I do. I honestly believe the majority in the pews wouldn’t know:

1. If the Eucharist is a symbol or the actual body and blood of Christ (not open to opinion in catholicism).
2. That we cannot be “good enough” through personal character development and excercise of virtue to deserve Heaven (this makes us easy meat for fundamentalists).
3. The definition of Pentecost.
4. If the book of Hebrews is in the new or old testament.
5. That receiving communion with unconfessed mortal sin on one’s conscience is itself sinful.

How do I know? I’ve worked with literally thousands of young catholics across America about to “finish” their formal catholic education (before confirmation). Less than 15% know the above samples. That kind of ignorance isn’t just refusal to join one extreme or the other, it’s apathy. Jesus called it being “lukewarm.” He had other things to say about it too.

I hear you about the “middle of the roaders” who are involved in other issues. I’m one of those too. I get my “conservative credentials” questioned all the time when I side with the church on immigration justice against the ‘build a wall’ folks, get called a commie when I suggest we might spend less on health care if we adopt a two tier system (universal basic coverage and insurance required for advanced treatment), a socialist when I describe Distributism as superior to laizse faire capitalism… I don’t think that’s mostly the case though. Most people without an opinion just haven’t bothered to develop one. (IMO!)

I agree with you totally. The apathy in the Church, for the most part, is revealing when one gets into a discussion about what is believed and what is not. I really think a lot of this has to do with poor Catechesis. Some parishes are good at teaching, others are not.

 

[elts1956]

Ah … found it.

BTW, I think John Allen’s article sums it up well, ncronline.org/news/vatican/vaticans-moderate-line-obama-has-deep-roots

National Caltholic Reporter is also a loose cannon. They make it appear as though the “Vatican” ie “The Pope” has spoken when he hasn’t. The article is from a journalist writing a column in a Italian newspaper. It DOES NOT represent the Pope.

Try LifeNews or LifeSiteNews or PriestsforLife if you want the Catholic view.

 

[elts1956]

Ah … found it.

BTW, I think John Allen’s article sums it up well, ncronline.org/news/vatican/vaticans-moderate-line-obama-has-deep-roots

The article is an interesting speculation; particularly as to his assertion that Europeans are more “identity-minded” when it comes to Catholicity than “issue-minded” as he asserts Americans tend to be. But it’s still just a speculation on his part.

I have also “heard” (no proof) that the reason many Hispanics voted for bo is because they tend to separate faith from politics. How they do that, I don’t know.

 

[elts1956]

I think you (or someone) mentioned the fact that the Pope sent a telegram to Obama the day after his election. I found this:

Pope Benedict sent his congratulations Nov. 5, referring to the “historic occasion” of the election, marking the first time a black man has been elected president of the United States.

• from catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805743.htm

So I would conclude that the telegram doesn’t in fact indicate support or like-mindedness, but was simply to mark the “historic occasion”.

“Yes”. Pope Benedict XVI was in his politician’s robe.

 

[RobbyS]

Quite honestly, I don’t think there will be any sort of significant split. You can watch the news, listen to the anti-Catholics, and nitpick over the details til you turn blue in the face, but when you get right down to it, the vast majority of the Parishes in this country are perfectly happily in communion with Rome.

There are social and intellectual orthodoxies in this country that have crept their way into people’s habits and beliefs for sure, and we have an unfortunate culture of people not going out of their way to learn and study the faith, but for the most part Catholics understand the major tenets of the Church. It’s not as bad as it seems.

As has been mentioned before, a lot of this is just the calming of the storm that naturally comes after a council as major as Vatican II. Time will smooth things over, and I firmly believe that most Priests and Bishops will realize that now is the time we have to stand strong and stand together. I actually predict that we’ll be blessed to witness the emergence of new Saints the caliber of Aquinas and Francis of Assisi in this generation that will serve to renew and refresh the faith.

That has ALWAYS been God’s response for the Church in the darkest of times. And we’ll come out a FAR better Church for it.

It took me a long while, but I have come to the conclusion that after Vatican 2, the Church underwent a second Reformation. The last forty years have been like the period from about 1520 to about 1560. Nothing so far has turned it around, more or less, like the Council of Trent did. But we had a period that more or less ended with the election of John Paul II, of sheer craziness–theological and liturgically. Priests and nuns abandoned their calling, just as others did in Luther’s time. Those who remained decided to remake things in their own image. The leaders of this rebellion–and their acolytes–still remain in the Church. We can see this as the USSCB tries to pretend that there is no deep split between our bishops and make a big deal out of tinkering with the liturgy, all the while circling one another, like boxers waiting for an opening.

 

[RobbyS]

National Caltholic Reporter is also a loose cannon. They make it appear as though the “Vatican” ie “The Pope” has spoken when he hasn’t. The article is from a journalist writing a column in a Italian newspaper. It DOES NOT represent the Pope.

Try LifeNews or LifeSiteNews or PriestsforLife if you want the Catholic view.

The Vatican, it appears, is a bit like Washington during a Republican administration. The top layers may be “conservative,” but the middle-layers are people of a very different stripe and they do what they can to save their own agenda.

 

[elts1956]

I think you (or someone) mentioned the fact that the Pope sent a telegram to Obama the day after his election. I found this:

Pope Benedict sent his congratulations Nov. 5, referring to the “historic occasion” of the election, marking the first time a black man has been elected president of the United States.

• from catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805743.htm

So I would conclude that the telegram doesn’t in fact indicate support or like-mindedness, but was simply to mark the “historic occasion”.

Indeed. There are people today who are in favor of the legalization of abortion just as years ago there were people who were in favor of the legalization of slavery. (Or perhaps the word “legality” would be better than “legalization”. But let’s not split hairs.)

Of course, now I’m disagreeing with SpiritMeadow, which means that I’m not “fine” at the moment (according to SpiritMeadow ).

How about, “I personally would never own a slave, but I can’t tell other people what to do”.

 

[elts1956]

The Vatican, it appears, is a bit like Washington during a Republican administration. The top layers may be “conservative,” but the middle-layers are people of a very different stripe and they do what they can to save their own agenda.

I truly think this is true. I don’t know about the top down structure though. I just believe there are groups within the Vatican who would be called liberal, another in the middle, and then the conservatives.

I think it was Pope John II who told us the devil is loose in the Vatican. But then, perhaps he has always been there, but is getting stronger??

 

[kalt]

I’ve read a few posts about how Catholics don’t believe all of what the Church teaches.

Is it true that all of these Catholics don’t believe? Or is it more likely that they find it difficult to live out their beliefs?

If they don’t believe, is it because they fully understand the teaching and deny it’s truth? Or is it that they don’t truly understand the teaching?

 

[zzz]

snipped for length…

Also they are addressing an American Catholic Council No such thing.

americancatholiccouncil.org/
Not speaking to the validity of the site…just the awareness that it does, indeed, exist

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

That’s because Dear Gig, the Church in Rome and “some” Bishops faithful to Catholic doctrine deem ABORTION the prime evil of what is happening in the world today, just as faithful Catholics do here in the U.S. One cannot mention the name of (gag) Obama without thinking ABORTION.

AMEN:thumbsup:

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I must be the other “culprit” that has a supposed personal hatred of Episcopalians. Absurd. SpiritMeadow comes on CAF and accuses everyone of intolerance, hatred, bigotry, and being neanderthals spiritually and then gets all huffy when some Catholics shoot back and don’t stand for it. I feel the same way that you do. While you were an Episcopalian FAR longer than I was, I experienced the contradictions, absurdities, and at a national level, full-on heresies and baffling slaps in the face of 2,000 years of orthodoxy. And one need not be Episcopalian to know of the insanity that goes on with that ecclesiastical community at a national level–ordinations of adultering gay ‘bishops,’ Buddhists being ordained, indaba meetings (hilarious), carbon footprint stations of the cross, thanking God for abortions (recently) in sermons, you name it.

Spirit might be right. I do dislike, detest actually, all that the Episcopal Church stands for. I loathe any mockery of Christ, the Scriptures, and moral decency. But when she says I hate Episcopalians personally, that’s a different matter and that’s obviously silly as heck.

Some of us read the Scriptures and the Fathers and learn the true lesson of what it means to be a Christian–obedience. Obedience is our lot, our destiny, not rationalizing sins and perverting the ecclesiology and theology for our own selfish purposes. Some folks would disagree. That’s fine. Every day an Episcopalian leaves that denomination, God be praised!

I wrote you a very long PM attempting to find some common ground and stop this ugliness between us. You choose once again to publically spew. Your “supposed” personal hatred for Episcopalianism is showing in what you wrote. Can you not see that?

For the records i said you had “issues” with Episcopalians, not hate. You do hate TEC and you’ve made that very clear to all. Stop discussing your issues with TEC here. Start your own thread if that’s what you need to do.

 

[bobzills]

The Church’s teachings, dogma, and catechism, as well as historically, are in no way “socially liberal”, at least not in the modern sense. .

I think it depends on which teaching you are talking about. For example, the current practice in the USA of easy to get marriage annulments seems pretty liberal to me.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Some people seem to want a Church of three members - “I, myself, and me”. When it comes down to it, only those three can be relied upon to be doctrinally pure. Anyone else might (for all anyone knows) be a deviationist of some kind. This however would mean sacrificing the universality of the Church in favour of something like a sectarian solution. ​

The problem with wanting a schism - apart from the detail that it amounts to wanting people to commit a mortal sin; & that amounts to wanting people to do something that will damn them; which does not seem terribly charitable - is that those who don’t leave, can’t guarantee that they will not themselves be found wanting by yet others who have not left. If the CC were a political party, there might be some sort of sense
in such suggestions; but it is not.

There seems to be an unresolved - & unresolvable ? - tension between two ideas about the CC:

• It is necessary for salvation, so people should join it
• Orthodoxy is important for being Catholic, so the unorthodox should get out & become something else

Yes that’s why I asked her if she had throught through to a test or oath or something to define those members who should be culled. She made it clear she had no desire to see the RCC turn people out, but hoped “they” would leave of their own accord, realizing I guess that they don’t belong. But I do agree, once you wish to attain some sort of purity, that “orthodox” gets narrower and narrower and fewer and fewer can meet all the obligations.

Yes I do agree the tension is allow those who are “flawed” to remain in hopes of helping them reach salvation, and giving up and simply trying to remain doctrinally pure as a self-contained “uncontaminated” group. One would hope I would think for the former. Perhaps this is one of the reasons some Protestants find the Catholic practice of “denying Eucharist” and excommunication to be counter productive to the former aim.

What do you think on this?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

To be accurate, you should say “many” members of the RCC are more liberal… The RCC theologicaly remains constant.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say the RCC 'socially" is much more liberal.
Please explain the difference as you see it, between socially liberal and theologically liberal.

I am quite aware that there are many who call themselves Catholic who are more theologically liberal than many Conservative Catholics are aware of.

Your first point is well taken. I stand corrected. “Many” members. I’m not sure what you mean by theologically constant. Is not faith ever evolving? The Vatican has a good many theologians and biblical experts always at work. They are adding to the faith presumably. Are you really saying that there is never a correction in any doctrine because the RCC claims it cannot error ever? I’m not sure, so won’t go further.

What I mean by socially more liberal, is that I find the RCC, and please correct me if I am wrong, taking a strong position on protecting the immigrant especially in the US. It has at least through it’s Popes made faith strong statements against the death penalty and war in general, not inclined to find just war. I think that whatever you think about Liberation Theology, the RCC has acknowledged that the Latin American peoples have suffered unjustly for decades under dictatorship, and it has endorced a “preferential option for the poor.” It seems to be moving rather to the left on issues of the environment. I see those as “liberal” notions.

Theological liberalism to me is a willingness to offer up the best analysis to date. I think the RCC, and this is surely my opinion, drags its feet on even what is produced by Catholic theologians and biblical experts which differs with historical claims by ECF and councils of centuries past. I assume this comes from “no error” can be possible by us.

I also think, and again, it is an opinion, that some statements in the past are now clearly wrong and and thus the RCC is somewhat hesitant to make any statement now to the contrary until “all the evidence is in.” Being burned as it were on the Galileo issue (I realized that some RC’s now dispute this, but the Pope did in fact apologize), the Jewish issue (again another apology), and evolution seemingly proven even to Vatican satisfaction, causes it to be reluctant to speak until they are 99% sure of being correct. No doubt some RC’s would disagree. But you asked my opinion.

SO in the end, I find the RCC theologically conservative in that sense, and socially liberal.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Have you tried the “Catholic” sites, such as Life Site News, or Priests for Life?

Can’t say that I have. I don’t follow Roman Catholicism generally. I used to of course, and read quite a few very conservative sites, but neither of these. Two of the ones I sited are of course RC. I do follow links in the mainstream to sources. And I keep up somewhat on the Catholic Reporter. But as I said, I don’t pay that close attention, because the dayt to day affairs of the RCC are not my concern generally. I do pay more attention as you can assume to various Episcopal sites. I’ll be happy to look them both up though and take a look.

May I say generally, that I used to subscribe to a Catholic blog written by 2 theologians who teach at a Catholic Seminary. A very conservative one. When I realized, that they wre not being particularly honest in their statements, I ceased going there. They admitted that I was right, but for reasons unclear to me, didn’t seem to want to share that with their audience. It had to do with scriptural analysis. In the end they rather freely admitted that they were pushing the “conservative” view which was decidely the minority view among scholars. I am not saying such stuff is symptomatic, and it is clearly as much a problem on the left as the right, but I shy from sites which are overly one sided. Vox Nova is expecially I think middle of road, and the topics and discussions are balanced. I don’t know as much about “America.”