www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall New News From SSPX!

Anton,

Since I had no emoticons in my post, I'll take it that you weren't speaking to me?

I don't connect peoples' intelligence to whether or not they are liberal. There are certainly many "liberal" genuises. But I do think that the connotations of the term, within a Catholic context, are positive.

Logos Teen

Johan:

It is somehow curious that in the United States and Europe, catholics (and non-catholics) tend to think that Latin American prelates are conservative and traditional, while the European and American ones are often vilified and seen as liberal in their thinking.

This is clearly not the case. Cardinal Castrillon is quite an exception. A lot of Latin American prelates, even when they try to be conservative on issues of personal morality abortion and euthanasia, are very pragmatic about other isues. They're certainly the most hostile to the traditional mass and they would never never allow its celebration in any parish, as it would jeopardize the idea of the "People's Church". While European and AngloAmerican Catholics blame their Bishops for not allowing more indult masses, there's not a single Latin American nation in which the indult mass is tolerated.

Many of the posters here are intelligent, and you seem to be implying that this intelligence and "liberalism" is somehow connected. Besides, its not particularly intelligent to be putting "angry" emoticons and more or less accusing people of being something that they are not.

I doubt something new or possitive to the discussion will come from this thread, we've ended up criticizing and being angry with each other. Maybe this topic should be closed.

Let's wait for good news from the Vatican-SSPX negociations to come and let's see what happens later.

Snoopy,

This is an on going issue which should be left for discussion.

Dear Teen of the Incarnate Logos,

I'd like to ask for a clarification of terms that you're using in this thread.

Posted by Teen....:

"We need some archconservatives to counter the liberals!"

What do you mean by an archconservative?

What do you mean by the liberals?

"I don't connect peoples' intelligence to whether or not they are liberal. There are certainly many "liberal" genuises. But I do think that the connotations of the term, within a Catholic context, are positive."

What do you mean when you say that you don't think that the connotations of the term within a Catholic context, are postitive? What term?


Let me explain why I'm asking.

It seems to me that Catholics on the two or more sides of an area of disagreement are properly labeled Catholics. Other labels appear to be used to cast a negative pall over persons who do not share one's opinion.

It might make it easier to decide not to examine the position that the other person is sharing if he or she can be labeled as conservative (if that is a curse word to the one labeling) or as a liberal (if that is the curseword of choice to the one doing the labeling). We can make the person the issue rather than the position that he or she presents. We personalize the evil!

It seems to me that such labeling can be a way of escaping the need to talk with the one who is, in reality, our brother or sister in Faith. We can just dismiss his or her position with the appropriate code word. It becomes easier to forget that we share the Faith with this person who understands things differently than we do. We become even more estranged than the simple disagreement might warrant.

As you can see, it's not clear to me how political terms like liberal and conservative fit in the context of religious or theological discussion. But since you are using them, I hope that you'll bear with me and explain what they mean to you and how one is better than the other.


Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Hey Steve.

I'll try and do the best I can.

By "archconservative" I mean one who adheres to traditional and orthodox (little "o") Christian positions and teachings (dogma and doctrine).

By "liberal" I mean one who antithetic to these types of positions.

I don't think that the term "liberal" within a Catholic context can be positive. I don't see the positive side of rejecting orthodox and traditional Christian thought, which is how I, myself, define liberal "within a Catholic context."

Please bear with me; the following will, I'm sure, be offensive to those who don't agree with me.

I don't consider liberals to be fully Catholic. I say this because, if one disregards Catholic doctrine or dogma (in this case I suppose I mean more than just "traditional Catholic positions"), I don't see how they can be fully Catholic.

Yes, I agree. I, along with many others, are guilty of this. With that said, I don't dislike "liberals", just their positions.

Like I said before, it's hard for me to see a "liberal" (you know what I just realized? I equate "liberal" with pretty much meaning "heterodox") as a brother or sister in Faith, if they reject part of that Faith.

So, those who would be considered "liberal" by disagreeing with traditional Catholic thought without denying a doctrine, those I can understand. But I can't understand the ones who outright reject traditional and orthodox dogma and/or doctrine.

I know this came off harsh, but it's not directed towards anyone specifically.

Hope this helps, Steve.

Logos Teen

Teen,

You got a fan on this forum. Keep it up!

Logos Teen,

What is your analysis of people who fit your definition of archconservative but who call themselves "liberal Catholics"?

I speak of Peter & Margaret Steinfels, John Carr, +Msgr. George Higgins, +Dorothy Day, Sidney Callahan, +Jacques Maritain, E.J. Dionne, +Thomas Merton, +Walter Kerr, Gordon Zahn, Jo McGowan, and Fr. John Garvey (Eastern Orthodox, in this case).

On the other hand, you have self-defined conservatives who openly reject aspects of the Church's teaching, usually the social teachings. What of them?

Axios

I think you are being a little "liberal" with your definitions!

You sure do.

To Logos Teen and other "conservative Catholics",
Terms like liberal and conservative are inapropriate in the context of Christian religion. Catholic/Christian dogma simply IS, there is only one truth. As God IS. And we affirm it or we don't and by affirming our belief in that doctrine we are neither liberal or conservative, we are Christians.

One can no more be a liberal or conservative Catholic than be a liberal or conservative watchmaker, or dairyman or astronaut. The term just does not apply.

Assigning a label to anyones expressions of opinion, their doubts, their dreams is a form of judging them. And grouping people into categories does yourself more harm than you know.

The deposit of the Faith is intact, the doctrine is unchanged and the Magisterium continues. If you know your church history it should be obvious to you. I have stated in other terms essentially that people who call themselves conservative are trying to claim some sort of higher moral ground. Remember the Pharisee and the Publican.

One may be, I suppose, liberal or conservative in practice. That does not make one or the other better. Practices change and evolve over time and most of our disputes are over practices. If one observes the disputes over the Tridentine Liturgy for example it is all over practices such as: should girls be allowed as altar servers, the placement of the Tabernacle, vernacular in the Liturgy, altar rails, reading the Gospel and the Epistles from separate sides of the altar, kneeling for communion. This is nostalgia at work, not religious sentiment. And the younger people that do not remember these things are getting into some murky territory when they advocate for one practice over another.

The Marian doctrines haven't changed, yet many who want to have new doctrines defined consider themselves the conservatives when in fact they are the liberals!

Did you know that you do not have to believe in ANY apparition of Mary since Apostolic times and you could still be a Catholic? You have the full freedom to accept Fatima, or Lourdes or Guadelupe or Walsingham or any individual apparition! Or reject them. They are private revelation and not binding upon any Catholic. So if you encounter a Catholic that doesn't believe Mary has appeared at those places would you consider them a "modernist" or a "liberal"? They are actually the most conservative of Catholics in opinion!

I only show these apparant contradictions to try to explain why generalizations like "conservative" or liberal" are really just a form of pre-judging. Do you feel your heart hardening?

Some of the people that value earlier practices so highly are willing to disclaim and ignore a validly constituted general council of the church, which was composed entirely of hierarchs who were trained, ordained and elevated to the episcopate in the Vatican I era. They were much more familiar with those practices, customs and attitudes than any of us today. They were raised with the Catechism of Trent and were shepherded and appointed by Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII. And if one accepts Catholic doctrine in full, as we say,were guided by the Holy Spirit!

Yet many of these so-called "conservatives" have the temerity to dispute with the church regarding their decisions! Some would like to "force the church's hand" and "make the bishops accept them on their own terms". Behavior like that doesn't sound very conservative to me! Yecch!

In Christ our Lord
Michael

delete this post please!

Well, Johan

If you didn't delete it, I was going to issue a stern and very UnPaschal response ) You saved me from doing that on the very day of Pascha!!!!!!!!!!

I always thought that the Roman Bishops of Argentina were suppost to be very conservative?

I alos heard that the Institute of Christ the King was now serving a parish in Beunos Aires?

I am aware that while Latin American bishops tend to be very liberal, there flocks are usually very traditional in their devotional life and doctrinal outlook.

Either way, it appears that the so called reunion beteen the SSPX and Rome has fizzled out (If it ever really existed).

In Christ,

Roberto

Dear Teen,

Thank you for your clarification.

I agree with you that those who voluntarily deny dogmas separate themselves from the rest of the Body of the Church. I think that there are many areas where differences among us are appropriate and even good. Witness the differences in expressions of theology or doctrine in what the Church believes among the sui juris Churches which make up the Catholic Communion. Such differences in theological expressions or insights can also enrich the life of the Roman Church.

It seems to me to be much harder to examine the legitimate beliefs and practices that are sometimes the source of disagreement and even contention among our fellow believers. It is easier to demonize persons. It relieves us of really listening to and hearing each other.

I admire the way that you search for the truth. It just seems to me that labeling people simply constitutes a roadblock to understanding. That's why I asked for clarification.

Again, thanks for your response.


Steve

Thanks, Steve. Your points are well taken. I do agree that putting political labels into a theological spectrum is probably not the best thing.

Logos Teen

Michael,

Hopefully this will be my last post concerning this, as I don't feel it's particularly productive, but I'll try and finish it with this. Your reply it welcomed, but please don't expect another post from me regarding this. You have have the last word.

There is really nothing I vehemently disagree with here.


Definitely.

I can buy that. But I'm not talking about practices, I'm talkin' theology.

I have not advocated any "practice" over another. Like I said before, nothing but theology applies here, at least in terms of "right and wrong."

Yup.

Yes, haha.

No, I would consider the terms to be non-applicable.

Well, if you want to label them.

What are you talking about? I said that these terms outside the arena of doctrine and dogma are N/A.

I agree with your first paragraph.

Who called them conservatives? Certainly not me.

Me neither! If they are rejecting dogma and doctrine, I would label (yes, label) them liberals. Because the SSPX reject V2, I would call them liberal, not conservative.

Thanks,
Logos Teen