Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[SpiritMeadow]

We hear “more Catholic than the Pope” when we get into discussions regarding theology, Tradition/tradition, etc. The liberals just don’t understand where we are coming from. It is mostly “Huh”. I have not seen ANY article claiming that 1. Conservative Catholics are dissidents 2. That the Vatican is going to “crack down” on them. You must have read the articles in a Liberal Catholic paper or on a website such as Catholics United. Please give sources.

It would be quite interesting for the Vatican to crack down on the Catholics who realize the evil of abortion since in at least one encyclical I have read,
the Pope, (Pope John Paul II) says abortion is the most important issue of our time.

Evangelium Vitae Pope John Paul II.

I think you may have conflated several posts, some not written by me. I didn’t say that Conservative Catholics are dissidents or that anyone claimed they were. I also did not say the Vatican was going to crack down on them. I said that “some” in the Vatican were concerned over the strident behavior of the American Catholic right, or words to that effect.

I cited sources in another post, you’ll have to go through the pages, but it should be on 2 or 3 perhaps.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Is this why you are here SM? To see which “side” we Catholics fall on? To see how “split” we are? To see you were right to leave the Catholic Church for a more liberal one which endorses your views?

You take one sentence out of a past post, not connected to anything, and then build a comment around it? Are you into conspiracy theory or something?

I think polling is a far better means my friend to see what you allude to. Not a single thread, with a dozen or so posters.

But whatever floats your boat as they say. Theorize away.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

Yes, its confounding to you no doubt. Millions of Christians voting for Obama. I don’t speak for them surely, though I am one of them.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

If one were to conclude that there is a real and somewhat sharp difference between the more conservative and more liberal factions of the America church, do you see Vatican II as causative? If so how so? What do you think it was that caused so many priests and nuns and convents to re-evaluate their state? Most convents did change rather dramatically. Having spent an appreciable time in a couple of them, I can certainly claim that. There were nuns of every discription, from the fully habited, to the fully “regular” from very conservative to very liberal. Do you see Vatican II as the cause?

So you think that American bishops are fighting it out for supremacy? Is the Vatican supporting outwardly either side? Frankly I was unaware of this. Is it a good thing? Not?

You make some very interesting points and allegations. Thanks for contributing.

 

[bobzills]

I think you may have conflated several posts, some not written by me. I didn’t say that Conservative Catholics are dissidents or that anyone claimed they were. I also did not say the Vatican was going to crack down on them. I said that “some” in the Vatican were concerned over the strident behavior of the American Catholic right, or words to that effect.

I cited sources in another post, you’ll have to go through the pages, but it should be on 2 or 3 perhaps.

I think it is well known that many German Catholic bishops have raised questions about SSPX.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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?

As to the first point: living out beliefs.

NO doubt there is some truth to that. A divorced person may have had no say, or had no choice from their perspective and feels unwilling to remain celibate for life, thus remarrying and perhaps leaving the church. But I would argue that many of the things people disagree with the RCC don’t touch them personally. I am not gay for instance, yet believe deeply to my core that God upholds loving gay relationships and that the biblical passages that seem against that can be read otherwise. (another thread no doubt). So I don’t think its fair to claim that all just secumb to what is “easier” although some do.

As the the second point: don’t fully understand the teachings.

My position has always been that primacy of personal conscience must be the end of the line, and I feel, personally that that was in line with RCC teachings both in the CCC and from both JPII and Benedict. HOwever, that process of “understanding” must start first and foremost with a thorough and complete examination of church teaching. It is followed by prayer, and perhaps consultation with “experts” theological, spiritual, and so on. Only when one is unable to agree that church teaching is correct must one follow one’s own heart in the matter. I believe God demands that.

My point is that I don’t agree that every dissent is merely willful desire to have it one’s own way or ignorance of the truth. Glad to see you back Kalt.

 

[ClementRome]

---

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” catechized, have poor priests who come from liberal seminaries and Catholic 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?
.

wait a sec. It makes you an ultra conservative if your aligned with Rome? ALL Catholics are aligned with Rome. You break with Rome you cease to be Catholic.

There are Catholics, and then there are heretics/schismatics. By going against Church teaching and the bible, by definition, you become a heretic or a schismatic and bar yourself from communion unless you repent. The “majority” as you call them are simply taking communion while in a state of mortal sin arrogantly thinking that they are so special that the bible and Church doctrine does not apply to them. That is pride, not “following your heart”.

There are the true Catholics who follow what the Church says, and then there are the dissenters and heretics. There won’t be an “American Church” if it breaks with Rome. It will just be another protestant denomination outside of communion with the Church.

The majority of the Church have already removed themselves by their heretic actions. Latie sentantie anyone?

And who cares what the majority does. Christ said not many will enter the kingdom of heaven. All it does is show how many people have been deceived by the power of sin and weakly break under its temptations. And in order to validate those temptations and sins, they must change Church doctrine. Sorry, church doctrine is binding, some of which even the Pope cannot loose. Who do these dissenters think they are to have the authority to change the precepts of the Church?

Only when one is unable to agree that church teaching is correct must one follow one’s own heart in the matter. I believe God demands that.

This is horrible advice as the bible says the heart is deceitfully wicked and that no one can understand it. The corrupt heart cannot understand the things of God fully. To use that as your guide is foolish considering anyone could “use their heart” to justify particularly any sin they want. The exuse “follow your heart” is nothing more than an excuse to not follow what the bible and the Church commands nor come to terms with them.

 

[ClementRome]

And some of us who are pro-choice ARE NOT pro-abortion. We are NOT. That is said to confuse the issue and attempts at making someone feel badly.

Not all of use who are pro-choice wanted a take over of the auto, banking, or tobacco industry either.

And liberals don’t JUST vote on pro-choice either.

The Church disagrees with you…

Catholics who support abortion are pretty much taking communion while in a state of mortal sin. Until that sin is confessed(of supporting abortion) you will continue to take communion in a state of mortal sin…

That is the reason why many Bishops wanted to deny famous political pro-abortion leaders communion. Its both harmful to the soul and to the parishioners around them who see it.

I said that “some” in the Vatican were concerned over the strident behavior of the American Catholic right, or words to that effect.

Can you provide any statements or documents from the Vatican declaring this? For some reason I think the Pope would side with the Catholics who are loyal to Church doctrine, not with dissenting liberals. Remember the Pope’s visit with Nancy Pelosi?

 

[Hesychios]

You break with Rome you cease to be Catholic.

You cease to be a Roman Catholic.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I said that “some” in the Vatican were concerned over the strident behavior of the American Catholic right, or words to that effect.

You put this in a response to me. I don’t remember making such a statement, can you find the post where I said this, please?

 

[GodIsGracious]

The Church disagrees with you…

Catholics who support abortion are pretty much taking communion while in a state of mortal sin. Until that sin is confessed(of supporting abortion) you will continue to take communion in a state of mortal sin…

That is the reason why many Bishops wanted to deny famous political pro-abortion leaders communion. Its both harmful to the soul and to the parishioners around them who see it.

BTW, I vote based on my conscience, as the CCC mentions we should.

I’m just fine, thanks!

Edited to expand on this: I take ALL of the issues into consideration when I vote, not just one.

 

[ClementRome]

BTW, I vote based on my conscience, as the CCC mentions we should.

I’m just fine, thanks!

Edited to expand on this: I take ALL of the issues into consideration when I vote, not just one.

Nice try trying to make the CCC say something it dosen’t say at all. That is dishonest. The CCC says nowhere that you can support abortion if thats what your “conscience” says.

And heres another thing from the CCC you should take into account

*2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: *

*2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. *

*"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81 *

So I really don’t think your “fine”.

Again, your conscience is not the sole arbitrator of decision. The bible is clear that only a fool follows only his heart.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Thanks for sharing.

Yes, I am fine. Thanks.

Nice try trying to make the CCC say something it dosen’t say at all. That is dishonest. The CCC says NOWHERE that you can support abortion if thats what your “conscience” says.

And heres another thing from the CCC you should take into account

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

So I really don’t think your “fine”.

Again, your conscience is not the sole arbitrator of decision. The bible is clear that only a fool follows only his heart.

 

[ClementRome]

Thanks for sharing.

Yes, I am fine. Thanks.

ignorance is bliss, huh…

 

[GodIsGracious]

ignorance is bliss, huh…

No, I just find it interesting that you have decided to determine when I was in mortal sin or not. When a person votes, they don’t generally just vote on one issue. I know I don’t.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**Originally Posted by GodIsGracious
And some of us who are pro-choice ARE NOT pro-abortion. We are NOT. That is said to confuse the issue and attempts at making someone feel badly.

Not all of use who are pro-choice wanted a take over of the auto, banking, or tobacco industry either.

And liberals don’t JUST vote on pro-choice either.**

God forbid you feel badly for supporting a procedure that rips a human life apart literally. Heaven help us if you feel badly about supporting a politician that encourages and protects clinics that destroy innocent little babies that can’t fend for themselves. There is no gray area on this. You’re either for abortion or against it.

And when you vote for a guy like Barack, big government, huge socialist regulatory schemes, high taxes, gov’t meddling in our lives, punishing the rich, redistribution of wealth, and pandering to the gays and abortion lobby are a package deal. Surely you knew that when voting for this guy?

It’s like saying, “wow, I didn’t know that gun owner’s rights, pro-life, lower taxes, and lots of $$$ spent on defense all came with this Republican Bush guy?” They come in packages like cable or satellite plans. You don’t get a la carte!

 

[elts1956]

snipped for length…

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

What I am saying, I don’t believe it exists legitimately. Some laity think “they” can reform the Church and make it into something “they” think it should be. It would be interesting to see what reforms they have in mind.

I think the laity can put their two cents in to the clergy, but in no way would any change that “only” the laity bring about be legitimate. Any change, ie. liturgy etc. would have to be in the hands of the magisterium.

Does it mention any goals on the site? I will have to go back and look again.,

 

[Peter_J]

Exactly. It wouldn’t be so bad if they at least said “I’m pro-choice on the abortion issue”. But they don’t. Rather we are all just conditioned to think of the abortion issue when we hear the term “pro-choice”.

I’m still trying to figure out what you meant here, GodIsGracious. Seems like you just repeated the same thing I said, i.e. that we have all been conditioned (or trained or whatever the best word might be) to think of the abortion issue when we hear “pro-choice”.

 

[Matariel]

No, I just find it interesting that you have decided to determine when I was in mortal sin or not. When a person votes, they don’t generally just vote on one issue. I know I don’t.

No, but the Church did set out a heirarchy of values, and abortion was definitely at the forefront. Really though, abortion aside, there were many positions that Obama took that were unacceptable from a Catholic moral standpoint. Abortion (no matter how late) the killing and cloning of embryonic human beings for research purposes, civil unions and gay marriage-like ceremonies, nationalisation of private industries (As per Rerum Novarum [sp?]) euthanasia, the death penalty, and a host of other issues. Then there are less clearly defined things, such as the lack of experience, huge verbal gaffes, the picking of an excommunicated Catholic for VP, slowness to condemn the horrendous human rights violations and murders in Iran because of “not wanting to get involved”, and his seemly gargantuan ego…

But anyway, this is getting off-topic from the thread…

 

[elts1956]

No, I just find it interesting that you have decided to determine when I was in mortal sin or not. When a person votes, they don’t generally just vote on one issue. I know I don’t.

I am so tired of hearing the words “one issue” “one Issue” voting when that one issue, the issue of life underlies all other issues and is the very first one we should consider. Without life, we have nothing. We should protect this right for all and as loudly and strongly as we can. As Pope John Paul II said in one of his documents, (paraphrased) All issues of “quality” of life such as housing, food, employment are as nothing compared to life itself. You can read any document by the Popes, the Bishops (if you can translate what the USCCB has to say) and you will see these documents always begin with a sentence regarding the preciousness and dignity of LIFE.

We are living in a pro death society because that is what society is supporting. Euthanasia (assisted suicide) , abortion, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual marriage. Everything that has been held to be against nature since laws were made. (The Ten Commandments) (Hamurabi) These LIFE ISSUES are no long PROTECTED by law. Society has begun with the most defenseless, the unborn, embryo used for research, but soon it will be the disabled (Terry Sheivo a test case), then the elderly.

Would you call this society healthy? I would call it one tainted by the scent of human arrogance. The scent gets stronger every day, each time bo takes another protection of society away and it all began with abortion rights in 1973.

Wake up.