A 'liberal' catholic that goes to Mass?

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by exoflare

If you guys are done patting yourselves on the back, lets take a reasonable look at what you actually wrote and how much of it even applies.

Well I'm only one "guy" and I'm not sure that what I wrote could be seen as "patting myself on the back", but - OK...Moving on....

The biggest thing that jumps out is how you're trying to lump in people who try imperfectly to follow Jesus but fail with the people who actively and willingly oppose Him, as if they're remotely the same thing. The only one of your 4 options that's even relevant to the discussion, on that note, is the first which is the betrayer.

<< What great things did these same poor, sinful, fault ridden men do later... >>

As applies to example 1, why don't you tell us.

touche my friend.... I guess I sort of lost my complete train of thought there...You are absolutely right.

Although - if pressed I suppose I could say that Judas provides a perfect example of what NOT to do (despair of God's mercy).

Also, I remember how Jesus unkindly "labeled" him according to his status as a traitor. It's too bad we don't have the ability now to go back in time to warn Jesus how uncharitable and divisive he was being. Make no mistake, He never sought to retaliate against the traitor in any way, never wished him any ill and even later still referred to the traitor as his "friend." However neither did he try to sugarcoat the reality of the grave evil being committed.

Very true.


Still in all - the subject of the thread being who we might see at mass and what faults they might have - it is good to remember that EVERY mass (even the very first) has imperfect - and even grossly sinful people at it - - and that was the point of that part of my post. But you DID catch my misstatement and I appreciate you pointing it out...

Peace
James

[exoflare]

I'm referring to "liberal Catholic" as just another term for dissenting Catholic. There's nothing inherently political about it, but it is quite a coincidence that the vast majority of the time they just happen to intersect with leftist political beliefs.

And indeed it is just as possible for a person to be "heterodox" in a "conservative" fashion as in a "liberal" one.

Politically, it's possible but it doesn't happen nearly as often.

[exoflare]

Originally Posted by JRKH

Well I'm only one "guy" and I'm not sure that what I wrote could be seen as "patting myself on the back", but - OK...Moving on....

Sorry, I think I did some careless "lumping in" with that part myself. That just seemed to be the general atmosphere of the thread though.

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by exoflare

I'm referring to "liberal Catholic" as just another term for dissenting Catholic. There's nothing inherently political about it, but it is quite a coincidence that the vast majority of the time they just happen to intersect with leftist political beliefs.



Politically, it's possible but it doesn't happen nearly as often.

I know plenty of dissenting conservative Catholics. The main difference with them is, they don't bother going to Mass or being involved with the Church, except for Christmas, Easter, Baptisms and Confirmations, which they treat as social events more than sacraments.

I think it's disingenuous to lump all dissenting Catholics as liberals.

Jim

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by exoflare

I'm referring to "liberal Catholic" as just another term for dissenting Catholic. There's nothing inherently political about it, but it is quite a coincidence that the vast majority of the time they just happen to intersect with leftist political beliefs.

Perhaps.

Politically, it's possible but it doesn't happen nearly as often.

Well here I was not speaking politically but rather ekklesially.
An example of a "conservative heterodox" would be the sedevacanist communities.

Peace
James

[exoflare]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

I know plenty of dissenting conservative Catholics. The main difference with them is, they don't bother going to Mass or being involved with the Church, except for Christmas, Easter, Baptisms and Confirmations, which they treat as social events more than sacraments.

Well yeah, you're right but in light of the OP I was thinking more specifically of the subset of Catholics that already go to mass whenever obligated.

In any case, I suppose that when you look at the number of mass-going Catholics who just dissent from the Church teaching on the Real Presence and artificial birth control you won't have many non-dissenting Catholics left just from that alone. And those errors ensnare people almost regardless of political affiliation.

[toosan1967]

Originally Posted by MirandaRiver

Or is there like a spectrum - where firstly you come to the Church and don't agree with everything, but over time you do? So 'liberal' catholics are just waiting for the Holy Spirit to fully bring them into harmony with the Church's teachings?

Hi, Miranda!

I'll chime in here because your question goes to the point of why I changed my 'Religion' tag a couple of days ago. First let me say that I believe this part of you post approaches the correct answer in that, I believe that in the Catholic church there are a variances in how closely church members' beliefs conform to the dogmas of the Magisterium.

With regard my changing my 'Religion' tag: that was prompted by a posting on another thread in which, as I remember, a Forum Elder said something to the effect that she thought that some of the people who tagged themselves as Catholic were expressing understandings and feelings which were not in total agreement with the teachings of the Magisterium. Thus, they were not really Catholics and were, in reality, enemies of the Church. I was stunned!

Now; I know I hold some unorthodox (or heterodox) beliefs myself. My conception of God is quite different than that suggested by biblical writings, although quite similar to the conception held by some of our own Catholic mystics. And too, I have not quite yet come to a deep understanding of some other of the dogmas for which the Church commands belief. Still, I study as often as I can to come to a deeper understanding and perhaps at some point I will be compelled to believe. It's that age old problem of how can anyone or any organization command love or belief: both of which must happen of themselves over time.

That being the case; am I an enemy of the Church?! I love the Catholic church. I firmly believe that if one wishes to be a follower of Christ, there is no better place to be than within the Catholic church. At the same time, I didn't want to give anyone the impression that I was a perfect Catholic nor an authoritative spokesperson for the Church. So; I changed my 'Religion' tag. Does that make any sense, Miranda? May God Bless Us All.

[Andre1000]

Here in Germany I was always told that I do not need to believe everything the Church teaches and that I should think for myself. And everyone I meet has been told the same, except for some members of so called "fundamentalist" groups. I mean almost all priest disagree with some teachings.
So I understand liberal Catholics.

[Swiss Guy]

Originally Posted by MirandaRiver

I've heard the term 'liberal' catholic that gets used a lot online and Im confused to exactly what that means, as my understanding is that all catholics are meant to believe in all the teachings of the Church and its traditions.
So... how can you be a 'liberal' catholic and go Mass and not be a hypocrite?For example - I could go to Mass and say the rosary but really believe in pro-choice rather than pro-life and not be a sin and have to confess that belief?

Or is there like a spectrum - where firstly you come to the Church and don't agree with everything, but over time you do? So 'liberal' catholics are just waiting for the Holy Spirit to fully bring them into harmony with the Church's teachings?

A "liberal" Catholic is a term generally used to describe a person who considers themselves Catholic (i.e born into the Church), but doesn't accept the Church's teachings because they often support modern liberal ideas (e.g abortion).

A Liberal Catholic could also be a member of a breakaway group from the Catholic Church.

Finally, a liberal Catholic could be a Catholic that supports more liberal views in areas that aren't required to be believed or accepted by Catholics which are related to politics. (e.g higher taxes).

[AlanFromWichita]

Originally Posted by exoflare

If you guys are done patting yourselves on the back, lets take a reasonable look at what you actually wrote and how much of it even applies.

The biggest thing that jumps out is how you're trying to lump in people who try imperfectly to follow Jesus but fail with the people who actively and willingly oppose Him, as if they're remotely the same thing. The only one of your 4 options that's even relevant to the discussion, on that note, is the first which is the betrayer.

<< What great things did these same poor, sinful, fault ridden men do later... >>

As applies to example 1, why don't you tell us.

Also, I remember how Jesus unkindly "labeled" him according to his status as a traitor. It's too bad we don't have the ability now to go back in time to warn Jesus how uncharitable and divisive he was being. Make no mistake, He never sought to retaliate against the traitor in any way, never wished him any ill and even later still referred to the traitor as his "friend." However neither did he try to sugarcoat the reality of the grave evil being committed.

Jesus told a traitor he was a traitor, and fed him real food both physical and Himself at the same time -- knowing he would be killed at the traitor's hands.

And because of that, I'm supposed to get indignant because I think the guy next to me believes in condoms? Or votes for the more of two clear evils?

Alan

[CMatt25]

Originally Posted by AlanFromWichita

Jesus told a traitor he was a traitor, and fed him real food both physical and Himself at the same time -- knowing he would be killed at the traitor's hands.

And because of that, I'm supposed to get indignant because I think the guy next to me believes in condoms? Or votes for the more of two clear evils?

Alan

Jesus knew this and He still fed the fellow and didn't turn him away? Did He know too that others would deny and doubt Him but He fed them too?

[exoflare]

Originally Posted by AlanFromWichita

And because of that, I'm supposed to get indignant because I think the guy next to me believes in condoms? Or votes for the more of two clear evils?

Why did you quote my post if you're apparently responding to someone else's claim?

[CMatt25]

Originally Posted by Swiss Guy

A "liberal" Catholic is a term generally used to describe a person who considers themselves Catholic (i.e born into the Church), but doesn't accept the Church's teachings because they often support modern liberal ideas (e.g abortion).

A Liberal Catholic could also be a member of a breakaway group from the Catholic Church.

Finally, a liberal Catholic could be a Catholic that supports more liberal views in areas that aren't required to be believed or accepted by Catholics which are related to politics. (e.g higher taxes).

Ok I confess I may be confused. Another poster said a liberal Catholic is a member of the Catholic Church. But it's really only themselves who consider themselves Catholic?

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by CMatt25

Ok I confess I may be confused. Another poster said a liberal Catholic is a member of the Catholic Church. But it's really only themselves who consider themselves Catholic?

Don't worry about being "confused"....These kinds of terms are not precise. You can tell just from this thread that the definition will vary from person to person....

Peace
James

[AlanFromWichita]

Originally Posted by exoflare

Why did you quote my post if you're apparently responding to someone else's claim?

I think I was triggered primarily by the following:

Originally Posted by exoflare

If you guys are done patting yourselves on the back, lets take a reasonable look at what you actually wrote and how much of it even applies.

I admit I was on the defensive right away here with the "done patting" and "reasonable" and "actually" .... very condescending way to speak to my brothers. Unless it was sarcasm or jest, in which case I'm the fool and I'll apologize.

It's too bad we don't have the ability now to go back in time to warn Jesus how uncharitable and divisive he was being.

Here it is. I know this would have triggered a post from me, in and of itself. I understood this to mean you are impugning so-called "liberal" Catholics like me who think it's wrong to go around putting "unworthy" labels on our brothers. Jesus didn't exhibit this kind of behavior even around a traitor who had sold him to murderers, and we're comparing that to somebody who doesn't share a political view? Sorry. I'm so not there.

Again, unless you were being sarcastic or joking in a way that escaped me.

Make no mistake, He never sought to retaliate against the traitor in any way, never wished him any ill and even later still referred to the traitor as his "friend." However neither did he try to sugarcoat the reality of the grave evil being committed.

True enough, and this almost made me think you were actually on the side of mercy, but I couldn't reconcile it with the previous quote above so I assumed you were just trying to soften an otherwise unacceptable position.

If I'm wrong about your post, then please clarify. I picked up intentional, unhidden sarcasm against what I felt was my heartfelt position and so that's why I wrote what I wrote.

Alan