Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[Matariel]

Pro-choice is a euphemism to make the unacceptable, acceptable. This is why I will never call it anything but pro-abortion. The alternate phrase you proposed, “I’m against a woman’s choice in what to do with her body.” isn’t correct. I am all in favor of a woman choosing not to have sex (i.e. what to do with her body). I am not in favor of her murdering her unborn baby (i.e. what to do with his/her body).

Exactly right. It’s a term used to sanitize a barbaric and murderous act against a defenseless human being-- a horrific human rights violation that deserves universal condemnation. No good and faithful Catholic can support this evil practice. Any Catholic who does separates themself from full communion with the Church and endangers their own soul.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

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??

Actually, I think you are referring to a comment that was made by either Pius XII or Paul VI about Satan’s smoke in the sanctuary.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

The precise point was that some in the Vatican are claiming that the far right in the American church is out of step with the Vatican itself and more conservative than it is, thus giving a false impression.

Who in the Vatican? Where was that claim published? The Vatican is both a city state, and a bureaucracy filled with lots of people with lots of opinions. Until we know who made the claim and under what circumstances and in what context the claim was made, the mere fact that the claim was made carries no import.

 

[ClementRome]

So you’re saying that the cultures of American Catholics, Mexican Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, and Chinese Catholics are identical? I don’t think that’s even tenable.

.

Yes they are identical when you compare the true faithful believers

The Church is One in doctrine and faith. Your either a Catholic who follows church teaching, or a dissenter or heretic who doesn’t. Just because allot of American ‘catholic’ women take birth control doesn’t mean that the Church is different or the doctrine has changed. Rather they are simply dissenters who’ve fallen away from being a proper Catholic. If people wanna put their birth control or fornication above the laws of God, then that is their problem, not the Churches. They are committing the sin of idolatry and lust and consider their sins more important than following the laws of God.

The Church doesn’t curtail to ‘allow’ the justification of certain sins. The Anglicans and the protestants may, but not the One, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. The doctrine is forever binding and remains unchangeable. The liberals can groan all they want, the church cannot change doctrine ex-cathedra.

 

[Matariel]

Who in the Vatican? Where was that claim published? The Vatican is both a city state, and a bureaucracy filled with lots of people with lots of opinions. Until we know who made the claim and under what circumstances and in what context the claim was made, the mere fact that the claim was made carries no import.

So far no-one has given proof that the Vatican is supposedly upset with faithful Catholics in America… so far I’ve only seen the Vatican come out against heretics who claim to be Catholic.

 

[Eleve]

Yes they are identical when you compare the true faithful believers

The Church is One in doctrine and faith. Your either a Catholic who follows church teaching, or a dissenter or heretic who doesn’t. Just because allot of American ‘catholic’ women take birth control doesn’t mean that the Church is different or the doctrine has changed. Rather they are simply dissenters who’ve fallen away from being a proper Catholic. If people wanna put their birth control or fornication above the laws of God, then that is their problem, not the Churches. They are committing the sin of idolatry and lust and consider their sins more important than following the laws of God.

The Church doesn’t curtail to ‘allow’ the justification of certain sins. The Anglicans and the protestants may, but not the One, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. The doctrine is forever binding and remains unchangeable. The liberals can groan all they want, the church cannot change doctrine ex-cathedra.

There is more to culture than religious beliefs. Anyway, you’d still be wrong in that there is dissent, licit or otherwise, amongst Catholics.

 

[bobzills]

The Church is One in doctrine and faith. .

Not really, The Cathoic Church does not have the same teaching in many areas. And this is official. For example:
In some Churches, according to the creed, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. But in most of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Similarly, in some Churches the Blood was shed for many, but in others, the Blood was shed for all.
In some Churches, it is taught that unbaptised babies go to limbo. In others, it is taught that unbaptised babies go to heaven.
In some Churches it is taught that any Catholic couple may use NFP. In other Churches it is taught that you have to have a serious reason which should be first cleared by the priest.
So the Church is split up and is not one in doctrine and in faith.

 

[ClementRome]

Not really, The Cathoic Church does not have the same teaching in many areas. And this is official. For example:
In some Churches, according to the creed, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. But in most of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Similarly, in some Churches the Blood was shed for many, but in others, the Blood was shed for all.
In some Churches, it is taught that unbaptised babies go to limbo. In others, it is taught that unbaptised babies go to heaven.
In some Churches it is taught that any Catholic couple may use NFP. In other Churches it is taught that you have to have a serious reason which should be first cleared by the priest.
So the Church is split up and is not one in doctrine and in faith.

If you really believe that then you don’t believe Catholic teaching or you are just unlearned. The Church teaches the Church is One. One faith, One baptism, One Church. Jesus said a divided kingdom cannot stand.

I was talking only about the Catholic Church too, not christian communities or sects. The one that was built on Peter. All core doctrine and faith is in union with each. A tiny difference in NFP advice hardly qualifys as a “cultural change”. Limbo isn’t even a doctrine.

There is more to culture than religious beliefs. Anyway, you’d still be wrong in that there is dissent, licit or otherwise, among-st Catholics.

Culture has nothing to do with Church doctrine. Again, it all stems out from the magestarium. Why are we even talking about culture? Its irrelevant.

And are you really claiming that there are no dissenters in the Church?

 

[peary]

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.

**A separation of the Catholic Church here in the United States with Rome I don’t believe will happen because of the unique nature of American Catholicism. There is only a small movement of radicals who are pushing for a separation but the vast majority of Catholics in this country seem satisfied with how the Church is going (except for the sex scandal, but even this did not result in a mass exodus of the faithful). It will accomplish very little if there is a schism in the Church in this country. I also don’t care for the titles ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’. I much more prefer ‘traditionalist’ and ‘nontraditionalist.’ But, then again, you can have a ‘liberal’ who believes in everything the Church teaches, but who is quite politically/socially active in ways we may disagree with.

We as the laity have to be vigilant to pass the complete Faith down to the next generation. Unfortunately, the last two generations have been lost because of poor catechetics.**

 

[bobzills]

If you really believe that then you don’t believe Catholic teaching or you are just unlearned.

You have attacked me as unlearned,but you have not addressed the poinst that I have brought up. This is what is known as an ad hominem argument. Let me explain to you what an ad hominem argument is. Instead of addressing the issues at hand, you attack the character of your oppoinent, by calling him unlearned or something else. Generally, an ad hominem argument is employed when you are unable to come up with a satisfactory response to the arguments raised by your opponents. I have given you several areas of official disagreement in the teachings of the Catholic Church and I can add several others:

 

[manualman]

Your belief is that the heart is “deceitfully wicked”? I thought Jesus resided there myself. I thought the Spirit attempts to guide each of us to truth and love. I guess the CCC and the popes in their pronouncements on primacy of conscience were incorrect. So God gave you a mind for no other purpose than to ask the Church what to do? Interesting analysis.

This quote from you reminds me of your (name removed by moderator)ut in the ‘Private Judgement’ thread. I think I heard your point being that when one entrusts ultimate authority to an institution, that trust in large corrupts said institution and makes it manipulate people for its own gain. On a human level, I believe you are totally correct. The problem is that the same forces work within the human soul on an individual level. The power of human rationalization is truly amazing throughout history. When you place ultimate authority in individual consciences, that power corrupts the conscience as badly as it does any institution. This is one of those pesky side effects of Original Sin. Ever since that fateful day, we humans have had this problem: we LIKE to sin. It seems good to us. Some are more easily see-through than others. Some are harder than others. To some, it seemed like the right thing to do to execute what they saw as the meddling nobody who made ridiculous claims of being the son of God, even. If that was what their conscience told them to do, was it right?

In day to day life and in grey areas, we must rely upon our consciences to discern right from wrong. But when conscience comes into conflict with revelation, revelation trumps. And for that to happen, there needs to be an arbiter, a reliable judge, an authoritative teacher with the Divinely given charism to cut through the infinite human capacity for rationalization. Thankfully God is merciful and loving. He is not the God of the deists. He does not abandon us to our fate or leave us without recourse. He did not hand out a book before the Ascension and say “So long, and thanks for the fish!” Scripture is pretty clear that the early church taught with authority and settled matters of dispute. They did so with rational discussion, but in the end matters came to a clsoe when the authority was excercised. And so it continues today.

 

[manualman]

Not really, The Cathoic Church does not have the same teaching in many areas. And this is official. For example:

1. In some Churches, according to the creed, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. But in most of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
2. Similarly, in some Churches the Blood was shed for many, but in others, the Blood was shed for all.
3. In some Churches, it is taught that unbaptised babies go to limbo. In others, it is taught that unbaptised babies go to heaven.
4. In some Churches it is taught that any Catholic couple may use NFP. In other Churches it is taught that you have to have a serious reason which should be first cleared by the priest.
   So the Church is split up and is not one in doctrine and in faith.

Not so. And here’s why:

1. Both are entirely correct and we are the richer for seeing the Truth from both points of view. From the Western view, the Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity. One God, three persons. It cannot be completely accurate to say that He proceeds ONLY from the Father since this implies a separation between Father and Son that can never be. From the Eastern view, it is important to recognize that the Holy Spirit does NOT proceed from two sources, but only one. Put both concerns together and you get a richer view of the mystery of the Trinity who can never be fully expressed in words. And neither party is wrong.
2. Again, both are correct, depending on how you take it. Shed for all is correct in that the invitation of Grace is given to all humanity. None were created with the desired intent of being damned. Shed for many is correct in that not all actually accept and receive the gift of Grace. Once again, we are the richer for both expressions of the truth.
3. As mentioned by others, limbo has never been a ‘de fide’ dogma. It is a viable theory created to deal with the revelation that God created us with a free will precisely so that we could choose Him, receive baptism (and the associated Grace) and thus live forever with Him in paradise. How could that revelation be squared with infants who die before being baptized? Limbo was one way of explaining things that might make sense. Baptism of Desire is another. Both honor the truth of revelation and the meaning of human existence. Learning about both increases the learner’s understanding of God and His revelation (even if Limbo turns out to be a wrong theory, which isn’t truly yet decided).
4. NFP has too many definitions to be clear. NFP itself can never be inherently sinful like contraception is. Thus, some simplify their explanations and limit the discussion for brevity. NFP users CAN still fall into the sin of rejecting the gift of children that God desires for the couple, but that is still a separate sin from actively sterilizing the lovemaking act. Kapisch?

In many ways, God is like the elephant and we are like the blind dwarfs trying to describe him. There are differing descriptions, but as long as the testimony comes from the Church, they all help us comprehend God better.
I’ll gladly take any more you got!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

When every homily at every Mass begins with “artificial contraception is a mortal sin and the equivalent of adultery”, or “abortion is a mortal sin”, or “living in an unblessed union is adultery”, or “you cannot call yourself Catholic if you willfully choose disobedience to Rome,” or . . . the clear statement and identification of some prized sin, they will either leave of their own accord or get to confession and begin to be Catholic again.

Thanks for clarifying your position. Do you think this likely to happen? Soon? I’m told that many of the seminaries and Catholic Universities of old are considered somewhat of a lost cause at this point. Do you think we will have to wait until the more “orthodox” seminaries produce enough new priests to start this return to orthodoxy you desire?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And again, I ask you. Where does the Vatican claim this? And what do you mean “middle of the road” Catholics? It is simple. There are Catholics who follow what the Church says, and then there are dissenters who don’t

.

Clement I have given sources, and a couple of Catholics here have given additional sources that speak generally to the same thing. You will have to go back and read through the thread to find them. Everyone seems upset with any labels. Some don’t like liberal/conservative, and rightly so since the RCC like any church is filled with liberals/middle of the road types/conservatives. My point is that the middle region is where I think most RC’s are, at least from polling. I realize that you have an opinion on what the Church says, and view it through that lens. Everyone does this of course.

sigh. Do you even know what the definition of a heretic or dissenter is? It is one who doesn’t follow or agree with certain precepts of the Church.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That is like saying that just because your profession is that of “Hit man” doesn’t mean you are in favor of murder. If a doctor is not in favor of abortion, he would refuse to perform them. Doh!

Again your logic is not there. Being a Hit man is an illegal “profession” and murder is illegal. Being a doctor is not illegal. And performing an abortion, regardless of what you may wish it to be is not murder under current law.

Your statement means that defense attorneys who represent murders and cocaine dealers are in favor of murder and dealing cocaine. The illogic I assume you now see?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Thanks for clarifying your position. Do you think this likely to happen? Soon? I’m told that many of the seminaries and Catholic Universities of old are considered somewhat of a lost cause at this point. Do you think we will have to wait until the more “orthodox” seminaries produce enough new priests to start this return to orthodoxy you desire?

This is already happening. As for the seminaries, the students are forcing the faculty into returning to orthodoxy.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Who in the Vatican? Where was that claim published? The Vatican is both a city state, and a bureaucracy filled with lots of people with lots of opinions. Until we know who made the claim and under what circumstances and in what context the claim was made, the mere fact that the claim was made carries no import.

All this was addressed in the early pages of this thread. You need to go back and read through. In no instance did I claim that any of this was factually true, only that it was displayed on several sites around the Internet written by sometimes Catholics and others. A couple of Catholics here added further sites they themselves had found. People come late to the discussion and don’t read through the thread, so ask the same questions again and again.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Again your logic is not there. Being a Hit man is an illegal “profession” and murder is illegal. Being a doctor is not illegal. And performing an abortion, regardless of what you may wish it to be is not murder under current law.

Your statement means that defense attorneys who represent murders and cocaine dealers are in favor of murder and dealing cocaine. The illogic I assume you now see?

The point is not the legality of either profession Hit Man or Doctor. The point is neither would perform a specific act if they were opposed to it. Both do it for money, legal or not. As to your attorney suggestion, that doesn’t wash either. Attorneys do not represent murderers or drug dealers, they represent individuals ACCUSED of these acts. Under our legal system however guilty these miscreants may be, until they are found guilty by a jury of their peers they are innocent.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So far no-one has given proof that the Vatican is supposedly upset with faithful Catholics in America… so far I’ve only seen the Vatican come out against heretics who claim to be Catholic.

I can only answer the same as I did to Marsha. All this was addressed in the early pages of this thread. No one is trying to prove anything. We have been having a discussion. If you aren’t interested enough to look back and actually see the context of the discussion, then perhaps you might find another thread more interesting rather than asking argumentative questions already answered, or really not the subject of the thread.

 

[Eleve]

Culture has nothing to do with Church doctrine. Again, it all stems out from the magestarium. Why are we even talking about culture? Its irrelevant.

You said a few pages back that “there is no American Catholic Culture, just Catholic Culture.” I think you interpreted SpiritMeadow’s statement about culture as also applying to Church teachings, and I wanted to clear that up. I do agree that culture has nothing to do with Church doctrine; that’s what I’ve been trying (ineffectively) to communicate for most of my participation in this thread .

And are you really claiming that there are no dissenters in the Church?

No, I meant the opposite; even though Church teaching may be unified, there are still different doctrines and practices among individual dissenting believers.

And, besides dissent, there are still open questions in Catholic theology that allow for a plurality of beliefs, n’est-ce pas? For example, the question of whether or not Mary died before the Assumption, or disagreement concerning Mary as Co-Redemptrix and other dogmas that have been proposed but not defined.