logo Sign In

Ask the member of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church AKA Interrogate the Catholic ;) — Page 18

Author
Time

thejediknighthusezni said:

In Babylon, they were all unified under Nimrod with one purpose and program. Isn’t there much to be said for division? If one group strays, they are not taking all the others with them.

There are many different offices in The True Church, some are Prophets, Bishops, Deacons, Language experts, Teachers, Healers… Why must the local congregations be exactly uniform?

Could they be one under The Logos while diverse in other respects?

Absolutely, and I never said otherwise. The problem with identifying them as liberal or conservative is that you are then pitting them against each other, which is harmful. Diversity is important, but so is unity.

Conservatives are demonized as uncaring. I would contend that it is precisely the opposite. To care for others means to honestly recognize what lifts people out of destructive conditions and to courageously hold to those principles in the face of all the hatred they inevitably receive from the enlightened ones. Moral Narcissists will feed the poor for a day and prance around with great superiority thereafter.

There is truth to that, but I also think a lot of conservatives really lack in charity. I’m making sweeping generalizations, but my main point is simply that one must take a middle ground of charity combined with a firm resistance to moral relativism.

Author
Time

Anyway, I have a lot to say about The Young Pope now that I’ve watched a few scenes… The worst part about it is that people are likely to think that one side or the other is faithfully representing official Church teaching. The reality is that the truth lies between what the fictional pope says and what the more liberal clergy say.

They say that the worst sin in a priest is pride, so it’s scary to see how many people in the Youtube comments of those videos want a pope like that…

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

Why do you object to the idea of “conservative vs liberal” Catholicism. I thought in real life there were arguments within your church between the liberal and conservative minded.

The Church has a single, unified body of doctrine, with some room for personal interpretation in some areas. For this reason, speaking of it as if it were divided into two different camps with competing doctrine is harmful to the Faith, as it tends to polarize Catholics and pit them against each other instead of us all being united in our faith.

But if they are actually divided into two different camps, would it be wrong to depict it that?

There should be no “liberal” or “conservative” or “moderate” or whatever Catholics, we should simply be Catholic. If we start breaking off into factions, or talk about the Church as if it was made up of different political parties, we are violating the prayer Jesus prayed at the Last Supper, “that they may be one” (John 15 or something like that).

After a little research, I think you refer to ST. John 17:11

“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” (KJV)

“Liberal” or “conservative” in this context usually refers to political views, which should only be secondary to religious ones. The truth is that the middle ground is the best road to take. If you’re too conservative, chances are you don’t have the same concern for the poor or social outcasts that you should and that you favour doctrine over charity. If you’re too liberal, chances are that you are less appreciative of the Church’s traditions as well as being willing to accept some degree of moral relativism, thinking of doctrine as less important than being “nice.”

Neither of those is healthy, since we are called to love and we are also called to uphold the truth. These are both of equal importance. Leaning one way or the other is usually what gets someone pegged as conservative/traditionalist or libera/modernist, which detracts from our main goal and vocation of living Christlike lives.

Hopefully that makes sense, and I’m happy to ramble on some more if you want me to expand on anything. 😉

But isn’t there some division in church in regards to the changes made by Vatican II?

Author
Time

How do you and the Church handle the Popes who were blatantly corrupt and clearly cared more about political gain than religion? (Alexander VI for example.)

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Oh boy, between you and Warbler, it looks like I won’t be getting a lot of homework done tonight. 😄 (That’s my fault though 😛)

I’ll get to you in a bit. I assume you mean “How do we account for corruption in the highest levels of the Church when it is supposed to be guided by God” or something like that?

Author
Time

If youths will do three things, stay off of drugs and alcohol, do not have children out of wedlock, and graduate from high school, the chances of them becoming trapped in poverty is reduced to nearly nil.

The course of action is obvious, every church and school and family must make an all-out push to prevent these pathologies.

Instead, the liberals and progressives fanatically protect the welfare state and the failed public school system and do little other than promote behaviors that entrap while encouraging hatred for the conservatives who seek an end to the cultural and personal devastation.

Joining in unity means accepting the dictates of these enlightened betters in their entirety. Any one who does less is a evil monster who deserves to suffer until death.

It all comes down to the psychopathy of Moral Narcissism. There is The Way of True Law. But holding to Law requires a complete surrender of personal willfulness. The progressive has no power to determine what should be “right”. UNDERNEATH IT ALL, PEOPLE KNOW. the progressive knows that right is entirely beyond them. And yet, they themselves MUST be right and all MUST BOW to their transcendent rectitude. This generates tremendous Cognitive Dissonance that throws these liberal dears into fits of HATRED for the people who recognize that they are viciously and stupidly INSANE.

This catastrophic insanity is perfectly represented by the ‘Living Document’ right of Popes to loose and bind AS THEY SEE FIT. Peter, AND NO ONE OTHER THAN PETER, was given special authority as Judge over the founding of the Church because he was to receive such a strong and miraculous indwelling of the Spirit that he could not violate The Word. 2000 years later, the most viciously depraved homosexuals on the planet claim the right to substitute their own wills. But the Popes must be so far gone that they don’t suffer dissonance. It’s purely about their sick jollies to deceive and expand their power.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

Oh boy, between you and Warbler, it looks like I won’t be getting a lot of homework done tonight. 😄 (That’s my fault though 😛)

I’ll get to you in a bit. I assume you mean “How do we account for corruption in the highest levels of the Church when it is supposed to be guided by God” or something like that?

Sorry, didn’t mean to keep you from your homework!

Author
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Why do you object to the idea of “conservative vs liberal” Catholicism. I thought in real life there were arguments within your church between the liberal and conservative minded.

I’m not going to deny that there are disagreements on certain issues. A lot of it takes place in healthy discussion (which is good), but perhaps most of it manifests itself in mutual antagonism (which is obviously harmful). First of all, there are two separate types of debates that need to be distinguished:

  1. The debate between those who fully accept the teachings of the Church, but disagree on certain issues that are either morally or theologically ambiguous or neutral;
  2. The debate between those who are orthodox Catholics and those who discard (either intentionally or through ignorance) various teachings of the Church and are therefore heretical.

The second is what comes to mind when I think of “conservative” and “liberal” Catholics. The reality is that those who are most conservative and liberal aren’t truly Catholic because they reject certain teachings of the Church. Those in the middle who are faithful to the Church could also be divided into a conservative-to-liberal spectrum, but it is not helpful to do that because it polarizes issues and shifts the focus onto our differences rather than our common ground, which leads to further division in the Church, as people start to “take sides.”

The question also arises, “What do ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ even mean?” If conservatives are obsessed with tradition and liberals with ecumenism and love, then that makes no sense, because both were important to the early Church, meaning that leaning one way is not newer or more liberal than the other. It’s just convenient to use those terms because they coincide with the political spectrum. And since the Church is a religious foundation with a spiritual mission, not a political one, it is harmful to think of it in terms of politics.

The Church has a single, unified body of doctrine, with some room for personal interpretation in some areas. For this reason, speaking of it as if it were divided into two different camps with competing doctrine is harmful to the Faith, as it tends to polarize Catholics and pit them against each other instead of us all being united in our faith.

But if they are actually divided into two different camps, would it be wrong to depict it that?

I don’t think it’s accurate to say that it’s divided into two different camps. I certainly don’t get that impression when I go to Church or talk with Catholics of varying opinions and political leanings. There is a broad range of opinion within the Church, and outside of it (including those who are nominally Catholic, but have heretical beliefs), just as there is in politics, but unlike politics, there are no “parties” to identify with, there is only God. And God is neither conservative nor liberal, and thus neither are practising Catholics (in terms of religion, not politics, I mean).

There should be no “liberal” or “conservative” or “moderate” or whatever Catholics, we should simply be Catholic. If we start breaking off into factions, or talk about the Church as if it was made up of different political parties, we are violating the prayer Jesus prayed at the Last Supper, “that they may be one” (John 15 or something like that).

After a little research, I think you refer to ST. John 17:11

“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” (KJV)

There you go, thanks. I’m glad to see I got the quote right, if not the chapter. 😄

“Liberal” or “conservative” in this context usually refers to political views, which should only be secondary to religious ones. The truth is that the middle ground is the best road to take. If you’re too conservative, chances are you don’t have the same concern for the poor or social outcasts that you should and that you favour doctrine over charity. If you’re too liberal, chances are that you are less appreciative of the Church’s traditions as well as being willing to accept some degree of moral relativism, thinking of doctrine as less important than being “nice.”

Neither of those is healthy, since we are called to love and we are also called to uphold the truth. These are both of equal importance. Leaning one way or the other is usually what gets someone pegged as conservative/traditionalist or libera/modernist, which detracts from our main goal and vocation of living Christlike lives.

Hopefully that makes sense, and I’m happy to ramble on some more if you want me to expand on anything. 😉

But isn’t there some division in church in regards to the changes made by Vatican II?

Yes, there is some. There are even those who reject Vatican II, or call it “evil,” or consider it less valid than previous Church tradition. There are others who misinterpret it and think it is an excuse to abandon all things traditional.

The reality is that most of these people are at odds with Church teaching. They do a lot of harm to the Church, often with good intentions, because they misrepresent it. There’s a lot of misunderstanding over Vatican II, which is the source of a lot of division, and in most cases, the conflict is between people who do not truly adhere to the Church’s teachings and thus, rather than being called conservative or liberal Catholics, it’s more accurate to identify them as misguided Catholics, or even non-Catholics in some cases.

Among those who are faithful to Catholic teaching, there is some disagreement over how much tradition should be retained, but in these cases, it isn’t usually strong enough to be called division.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Oh boy, between you and Warbler, it looks like I won’t be getting a lot of homework done tonight. 😄 (That’s my fault though 😛)

I’ll get to you in a bit. I assume you mean “How do we account for corruption in the highest levels of the Church when it is supposed to be guided by God” or something like that?

Sorry, didn’t mean to keep you from your homework!

No worries, this is a lot more interesting. 😄

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well, I thank you for the info will spare you further questions for tonight. GET BACK TO THE HOMEWORK!!

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

How do you and the Church handle the Popes who were blatantly corrupt and clearly cared more about political gain than religion? (Alexander VI for example.)

There are a few points that could be made about this:

  1. God can do good through imperfect, and even downright reprehensible people. We are all human and imperfect to varying degrees, and no one is too evil for God to use. (Whether this applies really has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, as it is undeniable that some popes did cause net harm to the Church.) To use Alexander VI as an example, he brought a lot of order to Rome and protected Spanish Jews, among other things. It wasn’t as if he was wholly bad.

  2. The pope is not infallible in his personal actions. Thus, Church teaching is in no way undermined by bad popes.

  3. The fact that none of the so-called “bad popes” actually changed doctrine can be said to be strong evidence of the guidance of the Holy Spirit rather than the election of the bad pope in the first place being seen as the lack of divine guidance. (Anything you might think is a counterexample of this is best discussed in isolation, as each case is unique.)

  4. Tying in with point #1, sometimes the political actions of bad popes benefited the Church in some ways. For instance, Pope John XII was responsible for crowing Otto I as Holy Roman Emperor which, along with resulting in a more peaceful situation in Europe, eventually resulted in the pope’s own family losing their negative influence in Rome.

  5. It can be equally harmful to have a pope who is deeply religious, but a terrible administrator/diplomat. While it is ideal to have a pope who excels in both areas, and holiness is probably the most important criterion, bad popes seem to have been pretty good on the political field, which was necessary in the environment of Medieval and Renaissance Europe, where religion and politics were dangerously intertwined.

There is probably more that could be said, but I’ll leave you with that for now!

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Well, I thank you for the info will spare you further questions for tonight. GET BACK TO THE HOMEWORK!!

Haha, if I must! 😉