Liberal Catholicism & the Falsification of the Magisterium

[metis]

Let me just mention that the Catholic Church's positions are not entirely static as change sometimes is done but typically very slowly. Acceptance of the ToE is one and changes made by Vatican II is another. As we know more, it makes more sense to adjust at times versus just standing still but without "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Afraid to return to Mass

The above thread by Pearl has me thinking about Catholicism and the divide between progressives/liberals and the conservatives/traditionalists and their respective visions for the Church. I have always been open in regards to my sympathy for the traditionalist wing of the Church but for this thread I want to focus on the liberal side of things and consider just what exactly this side of the Church wants. Then I want to ask a question.

So if I understand this wing of the Church their main demands consist of the following:

1. Renounce the teaching on the immorality of contraception, sodomy, fornication and masturbation. ​
2. Accept abortion as a human right.​
3. Endorse homosexuality (and transgenderism) as a positive good to be affirmed and celebrated. ​
4. Open the sacrament of matrimony to same sex couples. ​
5. Open holy orders to women.​
6. Abolish clerical celibacy.​

There may be more, but reading the comments on various forums of Catholic discussion the aforementioned seems to me to cover the main items which liberal Catholics desire. So here is my question.

If the Catholic Church were to accept and implement all of the above; would that not falsify the Church's claim to teaching authority? Catholic doctrine states that the Church's teaching authority on questions of faith and morals is divinely guaranteed to be free from error. But if the Church has been in error this whole time especially in regards to sexual ethics then in what meaningful way can the Church's teaching authority be said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit?

It seems to me that without a credible answer to this question Catholicism would cease to make sense. The only item which could be implemented without the Church falsifying its own claims would be the abolishing of clerical celibacy. Which the Church has always admitted is not requirement of divine law but a disciplinary ideal of the Roman Rite. Everything else is a question of morals and doctrine. I do not see how the Church can budge on any of these issues without effectively renouncing the Catholic faith.

An issue for Protestants and evangelicals includes this one, even speaking Ex Cathedra (under Spirit inspiration) a Pope may reverse a prior Ex Cathedra doctrine--this contrasts with a univocal Bible and a God who is unchanging in morals or whims.

The above alone falsifies Rome's claim to teaching authority--although there are complex apologetics for why the Holy Spirit changed His mind regarding pure doctrine over time.

 

[viole]

My point is that a repudiation of the Church's sexual morality would be a change in doctrine. My contention is that the Church's teaching on what constitutes sexual sin is definitive. The Church cannot change it without repudiating its own authority to teach on morals. Which again, destroys the claim that justifies the Church's existence.

Well, they used to burn people alive for what even the pope embraces today. That the Catholic Church adapts to the Zeitgeist is normal. That is why it still lives. So, I think you worry too much. Catholics do not care at all of those details. They just need a list of Saints they can pray to when they are in trouble. And all those other superstitions. That's all.

I would say that is only a problem for the intellectual catholics, or the philosophical inclined. Probably less than 0,00001 percents of all catholics.

The Church coming to a greater appreciation of the fact that not all people who commit suicide are necessarily culpable of mortal sin is not a change in teaching. The Church giving suicides the benefit of the doubt is a change in policy, but not in doctrine. Being granted a Catholic funeral is not a statement that the person in question definitely died in sanctifying grace.

Well, I suggest , but not necessarily hope, that you guys introduce this, and many others changes in policies over here. If you do not want to get extinct.

Ciao

- viole

 

[pearl]

What I'm suggesting, in these posts of mine on this thread, is that the church's teaching on sex is not a core doctrine at all but, for the most part, a rather peripheral invention and that, like other doctrines that have been changed in the past (lending against interest, geocentrism), these could also be changed. As I've already observed, Christ had practically nothing to say on the subject of sexual morality.

But Agustine had plenty to say, 'Confessions'.
Throughout the Confessions, the language Augustine uses to describe his sexual impulses is negative, reflecting images of disease, disorder, and corruption. Desire is mud (2.2, 3.1), a whirlpool (2.2), chains (2.2, 3.1) thorns (2.3), a seething cauldron (3.1), and an open sore that must be scratched (3.1). Desire for Augustine is almost a compulsion, an irrational impulse that he feels incapable of controlling without God's help, a bondage that he is too weak to escape. Desire becomes the last obstacle between Augustine and a complete commitment to God, because he is certain he cannot live a celibate life.

Nonetheless, it is Augustine's negative views about sexuality that predominate. In her book Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, the religious scholar Elaine Pagels is critical of Augustine's equation of sex with original sin, identifying Augustine as a source of Western society's negative attitudes about sexuality. Whether Augustine is directly responsible for the traditions that came down to history or simply articulated the prevailing viewpoint is open to debate. However, Augustine clearly had a significant influence in shaping Western ideas about sexuality.
Augustine's View of Sexuality (cliffsnotes.com)

 

[KW]

In the conservative view, absolutely.

In the progressive view, it would free the church from ancient errors which have no moral basis except custom; a precedent is when the early Hebrew tribes gave up sacrificing their first-born son to God, Another is when they moved on from 'No other gods before me' to 'I am the only God'.
As the examples above show, that's simply untrue.
It's obvious! That's the same Holy Spirit who sees to which Pope the conclave of cardinals will elect, and as you know, no pope has ever been elected who was failed to benefit the church and its followers.
Ahm, to the bystander, that happened a very long time ago. Look at the Thirty Years War and the papal determination to crush out Protestantism by force rather than by persuasion or by remission of taxes payable to Rome.
One might hope that a church based on common sense, decency and inclusion would have a place somewhere.

You aren't even Catholic.

The Catholic Church passes on divine revelation.

That's not up for debate.

 

[KW]

An issue for Protestants and evangelicals includes this one, even speaking Ex Cathedra (under Spirit inspiration) a Pope may reverse a prior Ex Cathedra doctrine--this contrasts with a univocal Bible and a God who is unchanging in morals or whims.

The above alone falsifies Rome's claim to teaching authority--although there are complex apologetics for why the Holy Spirit changed His mind regarding pure doctrine over time.

Your statement is false.

The Church does not change doctrine once it has been formally defined.

 

[metis]

The Church does not change doctrine once it has been formally defined.

Well:
3) Doctrine cannot change and is always presented in the same way. This view is most commonly to be found among Eastern Orthodox and some Catholic traditionalists. Everything has always been taught exactly as it was taught from the beginning, with no changes to the doctrine or changes to the presentation of the doctrine. All future declarations, such as council statements, must simply re-declare what was taught before.

One flaw in this view is that it’s simply not historically accurate. Reading second-century Catholic apologetics on the Trinity, for example, we see a less precise view than that posited by Augustine or Aquinas. The more advanced views of later centuries came from longer and deeper reflection on Christian mysteries and development of philosophical categories in which to understand them. The later views were not a change in doctrine, but the way doctrine was presented did change. -- Does Doctrine Change? | Catholic Answers

 

[exchemist]

But Agustine had plenty to say, 'Confessions'.
Throughout the Confessions, the language Augustine uses to describe his sexual impulses is negative, reflecting images of disease, disorder, and corruption. Desire is mud (2.2, 3.1), a whirlpool (2.2), chains (2.2, 3.1) thorns (2.3), a seething cauldron (3.1), and an open sore that must be scratched (3.1). Desire for Augustine is almost a compulsion, an irrational impulse that he feels incapable of controlling without God's help, a bondage that he is too weak to escape. Desire becomes the last obstacle between Augustine and a complete commitment to God, because he is certain he cannot live a celibate life.

Nonetheless, it is Augustine's negative views about sexuality that predominate. In her book Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, the religious scholar Elaine Pagels is critical of Augustine's equation of sex with original sin, identifying Augustine as a source of Western society's negative attitudes about sexuality. Whether Augustine is directly responsible for the traditions that came down to history or simply articulated the prevailing viewpoint is open to debate. However, Augustine clearly had a significant influence in shaping Western ideas about sexuality.
Augustine's View of Sexuality (cliffsnotes.com)

Indeed. As I recall, the guy actually castrated himself, in order to free himself from sexual urges. Not a healthy state of mind at all.

 

[blü 2]

You aren't even Catholic.

The Catholic Church passes on divine revelation.

That's not up for debate.

No, I've never been a member of the RCC.

But I've kept an eye on their politics, way over on the right with show pony Wojtyła, the bureaucratic nowhere with Ratzinger whose only useful act was resigning, back to the left with Bergoglio, the first pope to seriously address the engulfing child abuse scandal, and so on. And in each case the election was said out loud by the cardinals to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

But if it's your view that in doing so they were saying things that weren't and aren't true, I can't argue.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In her book Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, the religious scholar Elaine Pagels is critical of Augustine's equation of sex with original sin, identifying Augustine as a source of Western society's negative attitudes about sexuality.

She needs to look up the pre-Christian Greek and Roman views, because "negative Western attitudes about sexuality" (compared to who, I wonder) started with them. They were very conservative (with some exceptions for married men) and extremely misogynistic. At least in Christianity, the standard is the same for everyone.

 

[KW]

Well:
3) Doctrine cannot change and is always presented in the same way. This view is most commonly to be found among Eastern Orthodox and some Catholic traditionalists. Everything has always been taught exactly as it was taught from the beginning, with no changes to the doctrine or changes to the presentation of the doctrine. All future declarations, such as council statements, must simply re-declare what was taught before.

One flaw in this view is that it’s simply not historically accurate. Reading second-century Catholic apologetics on the Trinity, for example, we see a less precise view than that posited by Augustine or Aquinas. The more advanced views of later centuries came from longer and deeper reflection on Christian mysteries and development of philosophical categories in which to understand them. The later views were not a change in doctrine, but the way doctrine was presented did change. -- Does Doctrine Change? | Catholic Answers

The Doctrine of the Trinity was not fully defined yet in the second century. The truth of the Trinity was considered for a long time before it was defined as doctrine.

Doctrine, once formally defined, does not change,

 

[KW]

No, I've never been a member of the RCC.

But I've kept an eye on their politics, way over on the right with show pony Wojtyła, the bureaucratic nowhere with Ratzinger whose only useful act was resigning, back to the left with Bergoglio, the first pope to seriously address the engulfing child abuse scandal, and so on. And in each case the election was said out loud by the cardinals to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

But if it's your view that in doing so they were saying things that weren't and aren't true, I can't argue.

I said the opposite. Are you intentionally distorting my post?

 

[blü 2]

I said the opposite. Are you intentionally distorting my post?

You said, in particular ─

The Catholic Church passes on divine revelation.​

I read it as meaning the RCC passes (doesn't participate) when it comes to divine revelation.

You're saying they have access to the real thing? As I said that's what they claim.

Though as I also said, divine help results in a lot of weird choices for Pope. Not a revelation I'd like to pin my future on.

 

[KW]

You said, in particular ─

The Catholic Church passes on divine revelation.​

I read it as meaning the RCC passes (doesn't participate) when it comes to divine revelation.

You're saying they have access to the real thing? Really?

I see. I meant passes on as in hands down.

If there is no divine authority, there is no church.

 

[blü 2]

I see. I meant passes on as in hands down.

If there is no divine authority, there is no church.

True.

But if there IS divine authority, odd how the churches can't see eye to eye as to what it might say.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If there is no divine authority, there is no church.

If I can forgive someone who hurts me I demonstrate I am partly divine, and I exercise divine authority. I show that divine authority is not centralized into a single organization. I join the church of people who forgive. If I make that a daily thing and always forgive then I am a pillar in that church and an authority in the physical world, working the power of heaven here. Do I misunderstand the basis of catholicism?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Afraid to return to Mass

The above thread by Pearl has me thinking about Catholicism and the divide between progressives/liberals and the conservatives/traditionalists and their respective visions for the Church. I have always been open in regards to my sympathy for the traditionalist wing of the Church but for this thread I want to focus on the liberal side of things and consider just what exactly this side of the Church wants. Then I want to ask a question.

So if I understand this wing of the Church their main demands consist of the following:

1. Renounce the teaching on the immorality of contraception, sodomy, fornication and masturbation. ​
2. Accept abortion as a human right.​
3. Endorse homosexuality (and transgenderism) as a positive good to be affirmed and celebrated. ​
4. Open the sacrament of matrimony to same sex couples. ​
5. Open holy orders to women.​
6. Abolish clerical celibacy.​

There may be more, but reading the comments on various forums of Catholic discussion the aforementioned seems to me to cover the main items which liberal Catholics desire. So here is my question.

If the Catholic Church were to accept and implement all of the above; would that not falsify the Church's claim to teaching authority? Catholic doctrine states that the Church's teaching authority on questions of faith and morals is divinely guaranteed to be free from error. But if the Church has been in error this whole time especially in regards to sexual ethics then in what meaningful way can the Church's teaching authority be said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit?

It seems to me that without a credible answer to this question Catholicism would cease to make sense. The only item which could be implemented without the Church falsifying its own claims would be the abolishing of clerical celibacy. Which the Church has always admitted is not requirement of divine law but a disciplinary ideal of the Roman Rite. Everything else is a question of morals and doctrine. I do not see how the Church can budge on any of these issues without effectively renouncing the Catholic faith.

So it’s better to keep doing people wrong rather than admit it can be wrong?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Because people's feelings have become the supreme consideration even at the cost of truth.

It’s a lot like asking how the Old Testament can be trusted about morality when rape and slavery and genocide are okay but wearing two kinds of fabric is an abomination. There are ethical issues with sexuality but the church fixates on the wrong problems.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

As far as I am aware, suicide is still a mortal sin. That does not mean every person who commits suicide is culpable of the full guilt of mortal sin as consent of the will has always been a prerequisite of mortal sin. My actual faith in Catholicism has become quite shaky since Pope Francis has taken over. Precisely because I think his systematic empowerment of leftist dissent undermines the credibility of the Catholic Church's authority. It is as if the Church no longer has the courage of the convictions it claims to hold. As if it is desperate for the world to praise it. In that regards, the modern Church is a simpering shadow of its former self. I'd tell the Church to stop being wussies and enthrone a new Pius X. (Pius XIII?)

You strike me as a person who would complain Jesus healed on the Sabbath and declared food didn’t make you unclean and hung out with sinners and…

 

[metis]

Doctrine, once formally defined, does not change,

As the Catholic Answers article confirms, doctrine can and has changed over the centuries, so all you are doing is posting what YOU would like to see.

I have had more than enough of your fabrications.