Liberal Catholicism & the Falsification of the Magisterium

[pearl]

I do not see how the Church can budge on any of these issues without effectively renouncing the Catholic faith.

There is a historical conditioning of dogma. The meaning of the pronouncements of faith depends partly on the expressive power of the language used at a certain point in time and in particular circumstances;
sometimes dogmatic truth is first expressed incompletely but not falsely, and at a later date receives a fuller and more perfect expression, The Church usually has the intention of solving certain questions or removing certain errors, and these things have to be taken into account in order that the pronouncements may be properly interpreted; sometimes the truths enunciated by the church magisterium are in terms that bear the traces of the changeable conceptions of a given epic. Even though one may insist that a doctrine is infallibly taught by the church, that doctrine is historically conditioned and may have to be reshaped.

The church basically disapproves of sex

I think the Church admits to the pleasurable aspects of sex, except when it is not open to procreation.

 

[exchemist]

There is a historical conditioning of dogma. The meaning of the pronouncements of faith depends partly on the expressive power of the language used at a certain point in time and in particular circumstances;
sometimes dogmatic truth is first expressed incompletely but not falsely, and at a later date receives a fuller and more perfect expression, The Church usually has the intention of solving certain questions or removing certain errors, and these things have to be taken into account in order that the pronouncements may be properly interpreted; sometimes the truths enunciated by the church magisterium are in terms that bear the traces of the changeable conceptions of a given epic. Even though one may insist that a doctrine is infallibly taught by the church, that doctrine is historically conditioned and may have to be reshaped.



I think the Church admits to the pleasurable aspects of sex, except when it is not open to procreation.

Exactly. A grudging acceptance, on totally unreasonable terms.

 

[viole]

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.

Well, your church blesses weapons, refuses blessing to gays, and protects kids rapists to the point of moving them where they can rape more.
Do you think that is in line with the Holy Spirit?

So, your problem, liberals vs. conservatives, is totally irrelevant when it comes to the perception of the church in places like Europe. It is like talking about the sex of the angels, again.

ciao

- viole

 

[Mister Emu]

It is striking that this list is entirely preoccupied with sex.

Isn't that a reflection of the demand of the culture, write-large, that the Church step away from its sexual mores? Sexual morality is only one facet of the moral law, and the Church doesn't spend an inordinate amount of time on it within itself, my conservative estimate would be that 90+%, of masses will have no content with regards to sex.

If society agreed with the Church's sexual morality but disagreed about murder, would you find it striking that a list of dissonant demands were about murder and murder-related concerns?

Your post suggests that Catholicism would cease to exist if it were admitted that the church - a human institution, after all - can make mistakes. That strikes me as pretty ridiculous. No authority is free from error.

God is an authority free from error, and at the core of Catholicism is the faith that the Church is a divine institution populated by humans; while the humans may fail within it, it's core, doctrine, is protected. This isn't unique to the Catholic Church, as far as I know, all of the ancient churches held/hold the belief of a protected divine institution.

 

[metis]

I think the Church admits to the pleasurable aspects of sex, except when it is not open to procreation.

Blame Paul for that as he harped against "sins of the flesh".

Personally, I don't buy it as long as it's consensual between adults.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

In summary; attempting to polish a turd is an exercise in futility.

 

[exchemist]

Isn't that a reflection of the demand of the culture, write-large, that the Church step away from its sexual mores? Sexual morality is only one facet of the moral law, and the Church doesn't spend an inordinate amount of time on it within itself, my conservative estimate would be that 90+%, of masses will have no content with regards to sex.

If society agreed with the Church's sexual morality but disagreed about murder, would you find it striking that a list of dissonant demands were about murder and murder-related concerns?


God is an authority free from error, and at the core of Catholicism is the faith that the Church is a divine institution populated by humans; while the humans may fail within it, it's core, doctrine, is protected. This isn't unique to the Catholic Church, as far as I know, all of the ancient churches held/hold the belief of a protected divine institution.

Is anyone seriously suggesting the church's teaching on contraception is a "core doctrine"?

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.

 

[KW]

It was just in 1869-70 that the first Vatican Council decided that the Pope was infallible when he spoke “ex Cathedra” – or from the papal throne – on matters of faith and morals.
It might be just a matter of saying that decision was wrong. But saying that would mess with the reputation of the Catholic Church also.
The RCC seems to have painted itself into a corner on a number of issues and imo this was from a desire to be THE authority in the Christian faith to which all others would have to come for unity because the Catholic Church has decided that it cannot budge in doctrine and moral teaching and come to other denominations because of those things that have been pronounced as infallible in the past.
I am probably wrong about it's motives but the effect of infallibility means that it ends up in the same place anyway.

That’s a common misunderstanding of how Catholicism works. It is usually only after a doctrine comes under attack that it is formally defined. The authority of the pope and magisterium was doctrine since Jesus told them, “whoever listens to you, listens to me.”

 

[KW]

Is anyone seriously suggesting the church's teaching on contraception is a "core doctrine"?

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.

Yes, it is a core doctrine. It is central to our purpose here on earth.

 

[KW]

Changing teaching isn't something that the Catholic Church necessarily has a problem with. If they can spin the change in teaching in a way that they can say there's no change in doctrine, they're generally open to it.

We saw this with the Church's about-face on the issue of suicide. We saw it with their repudiation of the idea of "limbo."

And #3 - the abortion issue - doesn't need any action from the Church at all. It can just stop putting effort into pushing back against abortion... something that I think we'll see more and more as it becomes clearer that these efforts won't effect change anyhow.


Is this thread about your personal views or about what the Catholic Church is likely to do in future?

Limbo was never doctrine.

Suicide was considered a mortal sin. Dying with mortal sin condemns a person.

However, mortal sin requires full knowledge that a sin is mortal and the conscious choice to do it anyway.

We now know that is often not the case with suicide victims.

The doctrine did not change.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If the Church can err in the most fundamental questions of morality then Christianity is bogus.

Its your church which says that the good shepherd leaves the 99 to find the one lost sheep. That's catholic. It sounds like you are leaving behind the concept of catholic but want to keep the flag.

Protestantism is bogus anyway, so I expect those churches to more or less capitulate to the secular culture. The fundamentalists (although they have long accepted contraception) will hold out for a while but the mainline churches have already given in on just about every issue. Their truth is whatever the culture tells them. There is no reason to be a liberal Protestant. Liberal Protestantism is just secular humanism with a pretense of Christianity.

I think you are not in a good position, based on that post. What you have is a form of godliness, but can you prove its godliness with your results? You say that this one is bogus or that liberals have abandoned the most fundamental moral principles; but how can you demonstrate that you are any better? What's so different other than the words you say? If we're talking about who is bogus, then we have to be able to prove we aren't.

 

[rational experiences]

Origin of life. Brother sister first. No sex.

A memory.

Father mother never owned our human hurt changed assessment perceptions. About non sex priority of natural life origin status. Our baby adult review not theirs.

Their love real innocent true.

So if any human asks where did life go wrong.

Star irradiation gas fall brain changed human man behaviour was reasoned. No human man owned why the star fell. Innocent of outcome.

Group mentality inherited in men all felt the same.

So today humans ask why goody two shoes always think these evil minded humans can be saved...criminal behaviour human nasty behaviour.

Exact same history. Those humans didn't think or act like the brothers did. Yet if they put them in jail in those times today no science and no civilisation. Human life happy family love trade as meek humans.

Is why. Human behaviour spiritual could not help itself as the situation was introduced.

So as we identify our species by sex either or and life continues by sex it's why sex is a topic.

As life changed unnaturally by atmospheric gas spirit fall. Fallout.

First caused by star.

Then caused by men of science.

Why maths isn't real and maths he taught abominated life of our mother nature on earth.

As maths man invented all symbolic thought upon idealisms in their own head the warning.

So measure of man is what he rules with. Why a ruler is a measure.

His thin king didn't rule had it. Natural everything did and it wasn't measured.

A lord is a human beings civilisation status title as was the given king status.

Whereas life sacrificed not a king was brain prickled harmed life to be the human who taught humans historic truth.

By seeing Satan's clouds visionary to and from star stories themes. As it was written by recordings then images then recorded spoken man's voice.

So if you ask why a humans organisation established itself to save life by teachings. Now you know.

They toppled science temples in all countries. Built the healing church itself. Implemented new social laws and had to try to deal with human depravity changed sexual behaviours by brain imbalances.

The reasons for the church.

Organisation is always implemented by and only because of chosen group agreement.

Rich men who were in society traders as the lords teaching versus choices of their civilisations kings.

How secret spiritual societies emerged amongst rich men. Who began as hypocrites to heal what they caused. As science technology man's choices.

Why Alchemy was outlawed. Science was wrong proven once again. As each time they implement new machine conditions. Claiming this time I know it's safe.

Maths was already proven wrong immaculate heavens owned no space zero.

Jesus theme said Stonehenge plus water grounding was implemented failed blew up. New pyramids model you updated.

Today you promised nuclear new model would be safe lying every time.

It's what you do rich man trader liar as Jesus wasn't a lord nor a king he was a healer and an average man.

The scientists as men were the Inheritors of the science of David themselves. In their mind beliefs. Civilisation ruled with human lords king's.

The origin science measure was subjected terms by Kings for human invented trades. Why high priest scientist was always a king of scientific wisdom.

As once Phi a thought never existed. Began as man's is thin king.

Why the Lord thought good things and really bad things. The mind of men.

So when you all get over yourselves and establish that the church tried to assist the healing and control of humanities known stated changed behaviours it makes sense.

Ritual was for brain entrainment to try to introduce self controlled behaviours.

Thin king. They had to teach science Satanism human chosen evil as they did.

Therefore identified life mind body conscious notification life attack was fallout from above.

As below God earth dusts sealed owned no nuclear.. state. Man introduced nuclear below so above produces the same effect.

As science said change the most minutest energy the causes can be catastrophic.

Is the same as a bald hair loss hurt monk saying change as little as possible whilst you live as the mountains Buddhist.

Lord traders king's priests lived above them in mountain temples in the clouds actually. As science temple built on mount Ain zero mass.

Temples transmitters known kept cooled by closeness clouds.

Who was living in the mountains as a very ancient human life who survived ground life flooding. Knew it wasn't a good sign to leave his mountain home.

Therefore humans sexual behaviour as a mutual adult is private. So public flaunting was outlawed.

The term adult was established versus child.

A child was innocent and a virgin so by church law was protected as holy mother holy baby was the new realisations of men.

So paedophiles are a direct contradiction of the churches own findings

Father's pope was terms a medical healer wisest a brother. Celibacy was chosen. He was their confessor advisor about breaking celibacy.

Hence he would then ordain that they would leave the order. As he was a judge of their order. Order meaning what it is.

First celibate virgin brother sister.
Sex for mother father holy life.
Didn't own an agreed term for paedophilia.

But knew the Muslim marriage terms had changed their sex laws with children why they taught against that practice.

Humans in society as natural life are humanity. Family was first not organisation. And organisation trade and invention changed families life body mind consciousness by being rich and greedy.

Is the humans question what and why. How we can be innocent yet changed and abused.

Was our human teaching.

 

[rational experiences]

Limbo was never doctrine.

Suicide was considered a mortal sin. Dying with mortal sin condemns a person.

However, mortal sin requires full knowledge that a sin is mortal and the conscious choice to do it anyway.

We now know that is often not the case with suicide victims.

The doctrine did not change.

If you do a medical human biology assessment humans. As they did.

Science fallout stated chosen sin of man of Satan science. Human life attacked introduced by chosen man of science sin to our body. DNA damaged.

Humans had to teach against the chosen practice of science. So owned a summary and a teaching.

Method of self expression very different in olden times.

Said all babies are innocent of sin as by sex it's inherited.

Humans hence had a choice. Why celibacy was introduced.

Celibacy the choice of the church order hence said so I won't be involved in placating creating a human sacrificed life's suicide then.

I think it cruel. Order of celibacy stated.

As it was a human assessment of human life health only.

As in gods life all humans bodily die by owning a mortal life that inherited sin. So we die due to sin. Hence science didn't own the origin.

Their sin introduced unnatural human early age death. Suicide of life said the medical father. Chosen by humans in science.

Isn't about a choice to live or die as we all do die. To die early was considered suicide by science. As it changed all humans consciousness emotional expressions from its spirituality.

So Satanism had condemned us said the order.

The mortal life saved not sacrificed hence suffers the sin of mortality yet was saved and innocent. Was a healers medical assessment by the pope.

The church was in fact established as the medical order. As they produced for free all herbal potents.

 

[Brian2]

This is not about papal infallibility specifically. It is about the teaching authority of the Church in general which claims to be infallible on matters of faith and morals. Divine revelation is meaningless without some mechanism to guarantee its integrity from human error. The Catholic Church claims to be that mechanism. Individual bishops may err, but nothing the Church as the Church teaches as binding on faith and morals can be in error because that would falsify God's own revelation to humanity.

It is not that the Catholic Church is in a corner in regards to its moral teachings about sexuality. The real dispute is that the Catholic Church has yet to capitulate to the secular orthodoxy of unrestrained sexual activity as the summum bonum of human life. Liberal Catholics want a full capitulation to all the demands of the sexual revolution even if it would utterly discredit the Church's claims to divine truth. Because people's feelings have become the supreme consideration even at the cost of truth.

If the Catholic Church's claims to be the church founded by Christ are correct then that fact that other denominations have drifted away from orthodoxy and embraced the spirit of the age to varying degrees is not surprising. Because non-Catholic Christianities are false religions that lack the protection of the Holy Spirit. If the Catholic Church does ultimately capitulate as most mainline Protestant denominations have, then the faith espoused by the Catholic Church would be exposed as just as false as Protestantism for the reason I laid out in my original post.

You show an attitude of superiority to other Christians that some Catholics seem to have.
Other denominations have not capitulated but the same liberal versus conservative dispute is going on in other denominations also.

 

[rational experiences]

All human Christian orders advice is biblical testimony. Egyptian Jewish first then Jewish Christian secondly.

The variation was the new religious leader who decided to renounce the Catholic teachings which it can't.

As Rome wrote the new testaments after and with the churches building as it's written. And personal interpretation is not the original teacher Peter.

Chapter 56 Peter heals a man from his Christ teachings. Medical advice.

As the first church was in fact medical not occult science preaching.

So groups who didn't like the churches failings as human fall came again about after Jesus Christ was earth returned. Life consciousness attacked again as science predicted 1000 year shroud Turin evidence.

Baha'i writings a new human aware medical science challenge.

As Muslims had in fact began to rebuild by their emerging maths thesis the science temple with pyramids again.

After the promise no nuclear technology.

Pretty basic re irradiated fall out mind dis spirited human's behaviour inherited. The strange medical procedures dark ages history it's own evidence human's lost their mind sanity.

When stars in gas mass own earth images off earth as animals biology is similar to mans science machine designer and man's own image in stars. The memory of the star recording proves we aren't aliens.

 

[blü 2]

If the Catholic Church were to accept and implement all of the above; would that not falsify the Church's claim to teaching authority?

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'.

Catholic doctrine states that the Church's teaching authority on questions of faith and morals is divinely guaranteed to be free from error.

As the examples above show, that's simply untrue.

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'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.

It seems to me that without a credible answer to this question Catholicism would cease to make sense.

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.

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.

One might hope that a church based on common sense, decency and inclusion would have a place somewhere.

 

[rational experiences]

We all realise that if we keep reiterating historic review never will life be successful ever again.

I own my own human gripes against the church but I'm human first and I don't lie.

So today is life's presence. Newly born babies to elderly human.

No one older human living than 120 years life human genesis.

Exact humans life advice as human living biology genesis.

Present moment present choice brings the gifts to our life by our choices now only.

Not by any past. Now. Humans. Not buildings not types of buildings not human status....family. Humanity.

Right now

So right now you have a new choice. Are you going to allow new to emerge to assist us. As new life are human babies to continue human life....and adult protectors of their life?

Are you a human life's protector is your question and answer right now.

Then if you say I live inside a building applying your human protector thinking is correct. Newly born.

 

[Glaurung]

If sexual morality is the issue of the times, how is it that the subject has almost never come up in the last 20 odd years I have been attending mass, in fairly traditional parishes in London and The Hague?

Three words, in German if I may. Der Synodale Weg.

To claim that there is no attack on the Church's teaching on sexual morality is being obtuse.

Secondly, what you say about the whole of Christianity being bogus if the church can make a mistake in its teaching on faith and morals just does not seem reasonable. Any human institution can make a mistake, even if guided by the Holy Spirit. Men are men and make errors. Teaching also needs to be appropriate for the time and condition of humanity. What happened to the teaching about charging interest on loans, for instance? That was a matter of morals. Or Galileo's supposed "heresy"? That was a matter of faith.

That the Church has a fallible human element is denied by no one. But to claim the Catholic Church is a mere human institution is to deny the very basis of Catholicism itself. The claim of the Catholic Church and the very basis of its claimed authority is that it is a divine institution founded by Christ. That God Himself has guaranteed the Church immunity from error in regards to divine truths.

If it has erred in faith and morals then the Church has defected. If the Church has defected then the entire edifice of the Catholic religion crumbles.

While there obviously are things that must be regarded as basic to Christianity and thus timeless, there is no reason why sexual practices should be classed in that category, seeing as Christ said barely a word on the subject and a lot of Catholic teaching rests on an invented construct called "natural law".

Scripture is not silent. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.​

Of course, one can always play word games and rationalize away clear scriptural teaching. Which brings to mind. 2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.​

 

[Glaurung]

Changing teaching isn't something that the Catholic Church necessarily has a problem with. If they can spin the change in teaching in a way that they can say there's no change in doctrine, they're generally open to it.

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.

They haven't backed away from the idea that suicide concerns a "grave matter," but lately, the standard approach in the Church is that the suicide itself is evidence of a state of mind where something in the other two elements was likely lacking.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

So then they don't need to change it. They can take the approach that they've taken to most opposite-sex "sexual sin": leave it on the books officially, but as a policy decision, stop beating people over the head with it.

They've done this to the point where opposite-sex couples who are sexually active or even cohabitating often feel free to go to church. What would be stopping a similar approach to same-sex couples?

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.

That's the sort of spin I'm talking about: the Catholic Church can be very good at making a complete about-face on an issue while also arguing that its position hasn't really changed at all.

I mean, that last thing you said, "being granted a Catholic funeral is not a statement that the person in question definitely died in sanctifying grace"... that's true of absolutely everyone. The suicide ends up making no practical difference to how the Church responds to the person and their death.