Will the Liberal Church 'Schism'?

[Aramis]

Good post.

But wasn’t there a 6th bishop excommunicated, the one who co-consecrated with Lefebrve, Bishop Mayer?

Yes. But he was not a member of the SSPX, and his excommunication was lifted separately.

 

[Ockham]

I have my own answer for that, but I’d like to know what you think.

It would be impolite to ignore this direct question but I have been asked not to answer it.

 

[Ockham]

Archbishop Lefebvre was only going to get ONE approval; he’d been told to pick one, and then wait for the approval. He felt he knew better than the Pope. He decided to ordain four.

Then they’d be in the same position AB Lefebvre was trying to correct.

I honestly think the best outcome would be for the traditionalists to have a separate chrch sui iuris from the general Roman Church Sui Iuris… separate hierarchs, separate liturgical praxis, and overlapping dioceses so that the anti-traditionalist bishops can not suppress their use of the EF.

Darwin will account for the anti-traditionalists. The new bishops are far more loyal to the Church’s traditions than the generation they’re replacing. In Psalm 95 we’re told of a disobedient generation that last forty years. We’ll recover although not overnight.

 

[ProVobis]

The new bishops are far more loyal to the Church’s traditions than the generation they’re replacing. In Psalm 95 we’re told of a disobedient generation that last forty years. We’ll recover although not overnight.

They are more loyal to those traditions but they won’t mandate changes back to the old traditions. Even if the Vatican were to mandate no more CITH, EMHC’s, altar girls, liturgical dancing, etc. there would be major disobedience to this. Aramis is right, they have to be set up differently, even differently than the FSSP and the ICR, both who still have high exposure to the progressive elements within the Church.

 

[Ockham]

We won’t rebuild overnight. It will take generations as it’s easier to destroy than build. Perhaps the modernists will schism. Pope Benedict XVI has said he’d prefer a smaller Church yet faithful than a larger one prone to errors.

 

[Greg27]

I follow the NCR with some interest. However, there are also plenty of conservative Catholic publications out there and even plenty of extreme ultra-conservative and fundamentalist material. This is true for Roman Catholicism and also the other branches of Christianity.

It does seem in mainline Western Christianity there is a split within the mainline churches on moral issues. The Anglican communion is tearing itself apart at the moment over moral issues like whether women should be ordained as priests and bishops and whether actively homosexual people can be ordained as ministers. I consider myself liberal on most social and moral issues and see no problem with ordained women for example. However there are many ‘traditional’ Anglicans who have joined the Roman Catholic Church because the church’s more conservative stance on many issues such as women’s ordination or homosexuality.

I think the risk of schism in the Roman Catholic communion is less than for other churches since the church is more tightly controlled by the authority of the Vatican, which can enforce its decrees on any Roman Catholic Church via canon law. The Pope is also a much more powerful figure in Roman Catholicism than his Anglican or Orthodox counterparts since in addition to being the chief pastor of the church, he also has universal jurisdiction and infallibility, so he is the final court of appeal on any issue and also he can enforce any teaching or law by decree without any kind of limitation being imposed by canon or other law, except perhaps if he fell into schism or apostacy.

As a result the Roman Catholic Church has a much more clearly defined position on many issues than less disciplined churches like the Anglicans or Lutherans or Orthodox.

Nevertheless, it is clear that many Catholics disagree with each other and also with the heirarchy on many issues. Most of the writers on NCR appear to be baptised Roman Catholics and in my view they represent the Roman Church no less than a traditionalist. I personally don’t think a ‘liberal’ Roman Catholic is less a Catholic for their political or moral views than a traditionalist.

I think it is more likely disaffected liberal Roman Catholics will just leave the church for another one, or perhaps just abandon their faith altogether, rather than go into schism. The major schismatic movements in 20th century Roman Catholicism actually seem to have been on the traditionalist side, like the Pope Pius society, who refused to accept Vatican II.

From my own perspective I don’t think ‘top-down’ tailored solutions to difficult questions are the way to go about things. I think in most major decisions of our lives, including in the sexual and reproductive areas, need to be made by the private individual using his or her conscience and reason to decide the ethical issue. I don’t think that choice can be made vicariously for me by a leader in the church. I am happy for different members of a church to hold differing views on moral questions like the justice of war or the morality of abortion. But I don’t think it is right for someone to try and force me into a rigid and inflexible position on an issue based on questionable absolutist moral frameworks and which goes against my own conscience.

I would prefer to see the ‘liberal’ and ‘traditional’ wings of the Roman Catholic church trying to reach more consensus on issues that matter, from life issues to social justice, rather than caricaturing each other and cursing each other as heretics and worse. Such disunity damages the moral credibility of the church in the eyes of non-Catholics like myself, and also undermines the Catholicity of the church, which should be all things to all people and allow all believers to grow in faith to be mature, good and flourishing human beings.

 

[Ockham]

I Nevertheless, it is clear that many Catholics disagree with each other and also with the heirarchy on many issues. Most of the writers on NCR appear to be baptised Roman Catholics and in my view they represent the Roman Church no less than a traditionalist. I personally don’t think a ‘liberal’ Roman Catholic is less a Catholic for their political or moral views than a traditionalist.

I think it is more likely disaffected liberal Roman Catholics will just leave the church for another one, or perhaps just abandon their faith altogether, rather than go into schism. The major schismatic movements in 20th century Roman Catholicism actually seem to have been on the traditionalist side, like the Pope Pius society, who refused to accept Vatican II.

Unlike the Anglican denomination, the Catholic Church was not founded by a man. Christ gave the key of Heaven to the first pope, St. Peter at Matthew 16. When you disagree with Christ’s representative on Earth you are disagreeing with Him. The writers of NCR may have been baptised Catholic but by promoting a change agenda they are working against Christ. The reason there are thousands of Protestant denominations is that by breaking with the Church they set a precedent of schism from disagreement. My advice to you is to stop reading NCR and find a traditional parish for RCIA enrollment. May God bless you.

 

[StTommyMore]

I consider myself liberal on most social and moral issues and see no problem with ordained women for example.

Are you kidding me? This is a very enlightening statement it tells me some very important things:

• You do not understand the symbols inherent in Holy Orders
• You think you know better than Venerable Pope John Paul II
• Yo are generally ignorant of the Catechism

 

[reggieM]

Most of the writers on NCR appear to be baptised Roman Catholics and in my view they represent the Roman Church no less than a traditionalist. I personally don’t think a ‘liberal’ Roman Catholic is less a Catholic for their political or moral views than a traditionalist.

I thought yours was an interesting post and more on-topic than debates about the status of the SSPX (in my opinion).
So, let’s forget about comparing with traditionalists, and just consider what would make something (anything) represent the “Roman Church” more or less than something else.
In your view, what would that be?

I think in most major decisions of our lives, including in the sexual and reproductive areas, need to be made by the private individual using his or her conscience and reason to decide the ethical issue. I don’t think that choice can be made vicariously for me by a leader in the church. I am happy for different members of a church to hold differing views on moral questions like the justice of war or the morality of abortion. But I don’t think it is right for someone to try and force me into a rigid and inflexible position on an issue based on questionable absolutist moral frameworks and which goes against my own conscience.

What sources did you use to instruct your conscience on the moral norms that God requires of us?

I would prefer to see the ‘liberal’ and ‘traditional’ wings of the Roman Catholic church trying to reach more consensus on issues that matter, from life issues to social justice, rather than caricaturing each other and cursing each other as heretics and worse.

I fully agree, but there has to be some common ground in the dialogue.
For example, you use the term here “issues that matter”, but that needs to be defined somehow. For example, I would say that acceptance of the teachings of Magisterium of the Church are “issues that matter” to a very high degree. The NCR disagrees (as it seems you do also).

The Magisterium does claim to speak for God – giving what the Church believes to be God’s direction to mankind.

So that leads to the biggest questions:

1. Do the official teachings of the Church represent God’s Will (teaching, instruction, commandments) for mankind?
2. If not … ???
   Many questions can follow from that.

 

[sedonaman]

It is always interesting how people belong to a church and then want to change what the church teaches. If a person does not agree with its teachings, it would not be hard to find another denomination that will share the dissenter’s views. After all, there are thousands of different churches that call themselves Christian.

Mega !

The Church actually teaches that a person has the obligation to pursue truth, and if the Catholic Church does not have the truth, then he should look for it elsewhere. Those types who want change are actually selfish because they are trying to take away the Church that most Catholics belong to because it is … well … Catholic.

I have read the NCR and consider it heretical.

---

“False prophets will arise and mislead many.”

 

[reggieM]

It would be impolite to ignore this direct question but I have been asked not to answer it.

I find that to be strangely secretive. But I do appreciate the courtesy of your response.

 

[John_Pascendi]

Hello everyone,

I was very distressed to see in the National Catholic Reporter, which purports to be actually Catholic, articles which encouraged women’s ordination, praised politicians for defying the bishops (most specifically in regards to abortion), and the like.

These liberals tend to raise the Social Teaching of the Church, which is great and should be cherised, but they raise the social teaching over and above the infallible teachings on faith and morals.

This is heresy, is it not? But my understanding is the Church’s teaching in regards to artificial contraception, abortion, and homosexual acts are not changeable. Truth can’t change, regardless of whether one likes it or not. It seems to me these liberal dissenters simply see the Church as what they Want it to be, rather than what it is- the Fullness of Truth, the fullness of Christian Doctrine.
,well,they are in control in many parishes and so ,we who believe as we should are on the outside looking in!.Consider this to be the war of all wars…as in FBI couterspy adventures…their job was to find out just where the disease was,red traitors,work with them for a while,then when ready.expose them for the traitors they are! I knew the real Matt Cvetic…a Catholic who worked for the FB I for 9 long dangerous years…its scary reading but after doing so ,nothing surprises anymore…as the marine sargeant said “we are surroundered on all three sides…good,we have the enemy where we want em…”
Question is, will the Church ever ‘change’ these teachings? If not, do you see a possible schism later on?

Thanks

Peace in Christ,

Eric

 

[mtngal25]

Catholics who live in open rebellion against the teachings of the church are already in schism but because of the lack of governance in the leadership of the church, these malcontents are allowed to remain pretending to still be Catholic. It is my feeling that since most liberals’ kids later on drop out of the faith, the liberal rabble rousers will die out and the conservative Catholics will continue to have big families who will produce better Catholics. In my fssp parish, we are stumbling over babies. They are like ants and there are many more young people than old in our parish. We homeschool, so the kids still practice the faith. This is the future of the church and the contraceptive mentality of liberal so called Catholics will fade them out over time. Also, the fact that most of their kids drop out of the Catholic church and go to other religions or none at all means that the church that remains will be more orthodox. Then more orthodox bishops will come out of these good Catholics and the true teachings will bloom again and be protected.
Mtngal

 

[simonsays]

The SSPX are the pillars of The Church. Let history be the judge. We will be thanked for our service in the end.

The pillars of the Church? is that why they are not in full communion with Rome? get real and follow the Catholic Church.

 

[zdon011]

It seems that most ‘ultraliberal’ Catholics end up as loony loners lurking on the outskirts of the Church with a few fans (like ol’ Kung), or go off and join some fancy-dress New Age poetry-reading club, like ECUSA in the case of Fr Matthew Fox.
Their ‘beliefs’ simply aren’t coherent enough to form the basis of a Schism, and can only be defined in opposition to orthodox Christianity.

 

[zdon011]

It is always interesting how people belong to a church and then want to change what the church teaches. If a person does not agree with its teachings, it would not be hard to find another denomination that will share the dissenter’s views.

That’s the whole reason why we have Protestants

 

[zdon011]

Then priests or bishops or whomever need to start being more vocal. Even use the excommunication card, if need be.

People like Pelosie (spelling?) should have been carded already. Terrible…

I don’t like to make light of heresy, but you could take a leaf from ‘Bishop’ Schori (a.k.a. ‘Octopus Woman’)'s book. She’s been kicking out socially conservative priests and bishops right, left, and centre (especially centre). And she takes them to court to make sure they don’t keep the pretty buildings and won’t get another cent from ECUSA (retirement) funds.

PS–The Speaker’s name is Pelosi.

 

[wisdomseeker]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by JW55
It is always interesting how people belong to a church and then want to change what the church teaches. If a person does not agree with its teachings, it would not be hard to find another denomination that will share the dissenter’s views. **

Can you tell us what are the teachings of the Church that SSPX changed? I will be waiting.

 

[Aramis]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by JW55
It is always interesting how people belong to a church and then want to change what the church teaches. If a person does not agree with its teachings, it would not be hard to find another denomination that will share the dissenter’s views. **

Can you tell us what are the teachings of the Church that SSPX changed? I will be waiting.

Only one… Their leadership do not agree that a General Synod of the Church, united with the Pope, is infallible in matters of faith. They have not SAID this, but have LIVED this. Abp Lefebvre did say the council erred in calling for a new missal. So has Bp. Fellay.

 

[ussblanch]

I am a “40-something” Catholic and only a few years ago discovered the awesome treasure of the Traditional Latin Rite Mass. So I had ZERO preconceived notions about folks who offered Mass in this Rite. However, in the following months to a year after my initial TLM experience, I had the displeasure of encountering SSPX folks (as well as TLM folks not associated with SSPX, to my knowledge) who made it their mission to inform me (sometimes subtly…other times, very directly) that the Mass I was celebrating (Novus Ordo) was just not “as good” as how they were celebrating it. It is because of this influence (which was NOT isolated) that I abandoned my love for the TLM to return “full-time” to the Novus Ordo and to offer Mass with all the reverence I was capable of offering. Quite simply, I did not want to be associated with folks who (almost entirely “across the board”), presented themselves as being better or holier because they were worshipping God in the TLM vs. the NO. It was very troubling, disturbing, and heartbreaking to me…all at the same time. Only YESTERDAY, in the course of a completely unrelated topic of conversation, a convert friend of mine shared the SAME experience with me. She said that her husband has, who IS a theologian, has refused a number of jobs with ties to the TLM / SSPX for the SAME reasons. I’ve only met this person a couple months ago…she had these experiences in a completely different part of the country than did I…as my own experiences took place in VERY different parts of the country.

I am, in no way, suggesting that any one of you SSPX / TLM folks are like that…but, quite frankly, your posts here speak otherwise…and once again, that is heartbreaking to me.

I am not a Canonical Lawyer, a theologian (armchair or otherwise), a Priest, a religious, nor do I carry any other intellectual title…Church or otherwise…except wife/mother. I am a Catholic-Christian who adores my Lord in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar and who feels as though I am dying on any day that I do not receive Him…who loves His Bride, Holy Mother Church…who loves, respects, and obeys His Vicar, Pope Benedict…period! As I was reading this thread, I could not help but think about many of the saintly reformers of The Church throughout the centuries…and I don’t mean Martin Luther. I wondered what St. John of the Cross or St. Francis of Assisi said and how they treated those who didn’t agree with what they were trying to do by way of reform. My guess is that they didn’t degrade, berate, or humiliate them in any way whatsoever. Granted, they were great saints…and we all are just STRIVING to BECOME saints! But shouldn’t we strive to mirror their examples? What PURPOSE does it serve to berate (either subtly or boldly) others? I pray for my Protestant brothers and sisters every single day…that they will come to have the same burning love I have for Jesus in the Eucharist…but what effect would those prayers have if I berated them for being Protestant and not being part of the True Church that Jesus left for us? St. Francis said, Preach the Gospel always. If necessary, use words.

I was shocked to read “maurin’s” comment (and I am paraphrasing…don’t have the time to go all the way back through the thread and find the exact post) that the SSPX folks are the ones that will save the Church. My dear friend, I am astounded at the seeming arrogance of this statement! Remember that it was those who thought themselves the HOLIEST…those who thought that the Kingdom of God would come on THEIR terms who actually tortured and crucified our Blessed Lord when He did come! You spoke of those being blind because they refuse to see…but often times, we see a particular fault (i.e., blindness) so clearly in others because we are refusing to see THAT SAME FAULT in ourselves.

This is in NO WAY a “slam” on “maurin” or any other post-er here…PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND WITH A “way to go” REPLY!!! I TRULY submit this post with all the CHARITY in my heart. Hopefully it can be a wake-up call to the language, tone, and even overt sarcasm and obvious attacks on those whom God calls to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by means of the Novus Ordo Rite instead of the TLM…as well as to the APPARENTLY CLEARLY written language from Rome with regards to SSPX. Maybe it’s because I’m not an “intellectual” that it seems really black and white to me. I guess that’s why I’m just a wife…just a mom…just a child-like daughter of my Father.

I hesitantly welcome your comments and criticisms…but, refuse to get into a spitting contest with anyone.

In the Love of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary…

Perhaps you have an inferiority complex, because I have never once claimed that about your or anyone else. … If you feel that way towards the SSPX, it is because you have induced yourself to feel that way…not because of something I or anyone else has done.