why is it?

[Jnorm888]

Why does it seem like when a liberal dissents he gets to stay in Communion but when a conservative dissents he gets the boot?


The Donatist were very conservative and they got the boot. Novation was a very strong conservative and he got the boot.

Pelagius was very conservative, John cassian was very conservative........I don't know if Pelagius and Cassian were booted but their followers were eventually booted.


The Protestant Reformers were very conservative Augustinians and they all got booted. Some Old Catholics were very conservatives and they got booted.


SSPX seem to be very conservative and look at them? Are they in communion with Rome?







So my question is .........why are liberals allowed to dissent on doctrines they don't want to believe in and still be safe in the Roman Communion while Conservatives are not allowed to do the same?


Noticed how I didn't mention Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy or the Church of the East. I just wanted to focus on the Western Church.





I am just asking because I really don't know.


It seems to me that as conservatives get the boot it leaves a communion in the control of liberals and it allows them to mold it as they see fit.......just look at the Episcopal Church USA and the Prespyterian Church USA.....And if you look at Rome from 200 A.D. , 300 A.D. or 400 A.D. she is no where near as strict as she once was.


It seems that as time goes on a communion gets more and more liberal.





INLOVE Jnorm

Edited May 15, 2006 by jnorm888

[ironmonk]

Donatist, Pelagius, etc... Have you done your homework?

[url="http://www.baptistboard.net/board/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=27"]http://www.baptistboard.net/board/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=27[/url]

[url="http://www.baptistboard.net/board/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=26"]http://www.baptistboard.net/board/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=26[/url]

The protestant deformers were far from the teachings of Augustine. Luther married a man to a second wife while his other was still alive since he wouldn't stop commiting adultery. They were all so wrong.

Conservative is something I wouldn't call them... they were all liberal. They twisted Scripture and the Early Church Fathers writings in attempt to make their error right.

To be conservative is to obey the successor of Peter.

Your statement is in error. Conservative dissent doesn't exist because all dissent is liberal.

These people leave the Church when they think they are wiser than the organization established by Christ. All who leave the group are wrong to do so and do so to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15, Acts 20:29-30).

God Bless,
ironmonk

[qfnol31]

Pope Benedict when he was still a Cardinal said that it is because the conservatives define themselves well and it is easy to correct them.

The liberals do not define themselves very well and so it is exceedingly difficult to condemn or correct their actions, thoughts, et cetera.

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='981946' date='May 15 2006, 09:06 PM']
Donatist, Pelagius, etc... Have you done your homework?

[url="http://www.baptistboard.net/board/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=27"]http://www.baptistboard.net/board/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=27[/url]

[url="http://www.baptistboard.net/board/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=26"]http://www.baptistboard.net/board/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=26[/url]

The protestant deformers were far from the teachings of Augustine. Luther married a man to a second wife while his other was still alive since he wouldn't stop commiting adultery. They were all so wrong.

Conservative is something I wouldn't call them... they were all liberal. They twisted Scripture and the Early Church Fathers writings in attempt to make their error right.

To be conservative is to obey the successor of Peter.

Your statement is in error. Conservative dissent doesn't exist because all dissent is liberal.

These people leave the Church when they think they are wiser than the organization established by Christ. All who leave the group are wrong to do so and do so to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15, Acts 20:29-30).

God Bless,
ironmonk
[/quote]

Although i agree with your opinion, i do think your understanding of conservative is very narrow. Conservativism is an attitude of conserving values traditions.

Some cases conserving is justified, some cases its not. As in the case with schismatics.

But i do agree with you that it seems that dissenting is more appropriately liberal.

Maybe i didnt clarify anything.

SHALOM

[ironmonk]

[quote name='MC IMaGiNaZUN' post='982010' date='May 15 2006, 10:55 PM']
Although i agree with your opinion, i do think your understanding of conservative is very narrow. Conservativism is an attitude of conserving values traditions.

Some cases conserving is justified, some cases its not. As in the case with schismatics.

But i do agree with you that it seems that dissenting is more appropriately liberal.

Maybe i didnt clarify anything.

SHALOM
[/quote]

By definintion "converative" means to "not change"...

but a real conservative Catholic will not change in regards to Papal Authority... therefore to be conservative is to hold onto this prime teaching since the time of Christ... to what to hold onto a practice that the Pope says to change is liberal because they are going against a prime teaching of the faith.

[Jnorm888]

Ironmonk,



You didn't answer my question. There are Roman Catholics who partake of communion in Protestant Churches. Roman Catholics who use birth control, Roman Catholics who are heavily into witchcraft. Infact I dated a Roman Catholic once who believed that the devil was God's equal......somewhat of a ying yang thing.

And there are Roman Catholic clergy that are no different than their Liberal Protestant conterparts when it comes to higher criticism and liberal theology.

What ever happened to the clergy in South America who invented liberation theology? Are there still clergy within Rome that uphold liberation theology? And if so why are they givin a break?




Yet they are all safe in the Roman Communion. But if someone wants to preserve an ancient custom or belief they are marginalized and booted.


And their theological errors are not tolerated or looked over, but the theological errors of liberals seem to be ignored.






INLOVE Jnorm

qfnol31,



Thanks for answering my question. What you posted made alot of sense.






INLOVE Jnorm

Edited May 16, 2006 by jnorm888

[cmotherofpirl]

Because we are in a liberal culture, liberal catholics find it easier to fit in. Conservatives have a harder time of it, we are more noticable.

[Guest lion160]

Well, you have to look at this from a historical standpoint. I don't want to disregard your understanding or your terminology, but liberal and conservative are such loose terms.

Lets take one example, the Albigensians were a "conservative" group of "proclaimed christians" who sought to purify the church during the early 12th Century. They wanted to rid the church of all of its damaging elements, including the sacraments, marriage, etc. They understood it as stripping the church down to its purest sense. Innocent III called for a Crusade to dispel these "heretics" and they were slaughtered and disappeared from France.

Now if we break that down, they wanted to completely change the church, which would be liberal. However, historians accept them as ultra-strict conservatives, just as Puritans, Amish, etc. Those who history claims to be conservatives are often far from conservative.

Your understanding of conservative is manipulated by socities understanding of it, its a poor term to use when talking about religion because of the negative meaning it gets from politics. The word liberal basically just means "desires change, or supports change," not "evil leftist nuthouse". There were some outstanding groups that affected the church that would have been deemed "liberal". But its a historical term and it relates to the time period, its all relative.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='981998' date='May 15 2006, 09:44 PM']
Pope Benedict when he was still a Cardinal said that it is because the conservatives define themselves well and it is easy to correct them.

The liberals do not define themselves very well and so it is exceedingly difficult to condemn or correct their actions, thoughts, et cetera.
[/quote]



BTW Great Question Submitter!

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='lion160' post='984663' date='May 18 2006, 02:04 PM']
Well, you have to look at this from a historical standpoint. I don't want to disregard your understanding or your terminology, but liberal and conservative are such loose terms.

Lets take one example, the Albigensians were a "conservative" group of "proclaimed christians" who sought to purify the church during the early 12th Century. They wanted to rid the church of all of its damaging elements, including the sacraments, marriage, etc. They understood it as stripping the church down to its purest sense. Innocent III called for a Crusade to dispel these "heretics" and they were slaughtered and disappeared from France.

Now if we break that down, they wanted to completely change the church, which would be liberal. However, historians accept them as ultra-strict conservatives, just as Puritans, Amish, etc. Those who history claims to be conservatives are often far from conservative.

Your understanding of conservative is manipulated by socities understanding of it, its a poor term to use when talking about religion because of the negative meaning it gets from politics. The word liberal basically just means "desires change, or supports change," not "evil leftist nuthouse". There were some outstanding groups that affected the church that would have been deemed "liberal". But its a historical term and it relates to the time period, its all relative.
[/quote]



I didn't use the Albigensians because they were gnostic. I think.......I may be wrong but I thought they were a gnostic group, and that would be liberal in my mind. Alot of modern day liberals are pagans in my mind and some of them have ......a so-called quote on quote "conservative" lifestyle.

Some gnostic sects lived a strict lifestyle.


They were not a group that we can learn christian orthodoxy from like that of Tertullian, Origen, Taition, Hippolytus, Novation, John Cassian, Luther, Thomas Cranmer, King Henry the VIII.......ect

So you can't put them in the same lump as them.


What catholic practice or belief did the Albigensians want to preserve? This is why I did not include them. But thanks for answering anyway.






INLOVE Jnorm

Edited May 20, 2006 by jnorm888

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='jnorm888' post='981795' date='May 15 2006, 04:18 PM']
Why does it seem like when a liberal dissents he gets to stay in Communion but when a conservative dissents he gets the boot?
The Donatist were very conservative and they got the boot. Novation was a very strong conservative and he got the boot.

Pelagius was very conservative, John cassian was very conservative........I don't know if Pelagius and Cassian were booted but their followers were eventually booted.
The Protestant Reformers were very conservative Augustinians and they all got booted. Some Old Catholics were very conservatives and they got booted.
SSPX seem to be very conservative and look at them? Are they in communion with Rome?
So my question is .........why are liberals allowed to dissent on doctrines they don't want to believe in and still be safe in the Roman Communion while Conservatives are not allowed to do the same?
Noticed how I didn't mention Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy or the Church of the East. I just wanted to focus on the Western Church.
I am just asking because I really don't know.
It seems to me that as conservatives get the boot it leaves a communion in the control of liberals and it allows them to mold it as they see fit.......just look at the Episcopal Church USA and the Prespyterian Church USA.....And if you look at Rome from 200 A.D. , 300 A.D. or 400 A.D. she is no where near as strict as she once was.
It seems that as time goes on a communion gets more and more liberal.
INLOVE Jnorm
[/quote]

I agree with your basic assertion(that conservatives readily get the boot while the liberals are left to do what they want) but I would think twice before using some of these guys as examples of tradition . But yes I often used to wonder why this is, but it has become more clear over the last year over why people like the SSPX get booted and people like many of the Jesuits and people like Cardinal Mahoney doesn't get ousted.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='982127' date='May 16 2006, 05:57 AM']
By definintion "converative" means to "not change"...

but a real conservative Catholic will not change in regards to Papal Authority... therefore to be conservative is to hold onto this prime teaching since the time of Christ... to what to hold onto a practice that the Pope says to change is liberal because they are going against a prime teaching of the faith.
[/quote]

technically, however, liberals can be protected by resorting to definitions as well:

marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL

So if we are going by strict definitions, every orthodox catholic is both liberal and conservative.

[journeyman]

wonderful reasons to never use the words "liberal" and "conservative" in the debate board

if that word starts to sneak into your keyboard, back up, identify the behavior or action, and replace the word with what you have identified

[Desert Walker]

Frankly, I've given up on the notion that these words can be used to describe, in a general way, certain behaviorisms.

My primary reason for this change of mentality is the fact that, when you throw these words around, especially in American culture, people automatically start thinking about politics and party platforms.

I don't think it is possible to use these words correctly unless one uses them in a specific, detailed context.

That's just my current thinking on it.

[XIX]

[quote name='journeyman' post='986487' date='May 21 2006, 11:15 AM']
wonderful reasons to never use the words "liberal" and "conservative" in the debate board

if that word starts to sneak into your keyboard, back up, identify the behavior or action, and replace the word with what you have identified
[/quote]

I think the words are just devisive. I believe the devil does a "good" job of using words like liberal and conservative to create division within the Catholic Church. This is bad for real ecumenism. (remembering that "oh let's all act protestant" = "false ecumenism")


[quote]
con·ser·va·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

n.
One favoring traditional views and values.
A supporter of political conservatism.
Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Archaic. A preservative agent or principle.
[/quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote]lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

n.
A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
[/quote]

Conclusion: Conservative and Liberal can really mean whatever you want it to mean.

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='XIX' post='987187' date='May 22 2006, 11:25 AM']
I think the words are just devisive. I believe the devil does a "good" job of using words like liberal and conservative to create division within the Catholic Church. This is bad for real ecumenism. (remembering that "oh let's all act protestant" = "false ecumenism")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Conservative and Liberal can really mean whatever you want it to mean.
[/quote]



Liberal vs conservative always has a context.


And if you know Church History then it has the context that I was trying to get at.










INLOVE Jnorm

[jswranch]

[quote name='jnorm888' post='989851' date='May 24 2006, 04:56 PM']
Liberal vs conservative always has a context.
And if you know Church History then it has the context that I was trying to get at.
INLOVE Jnorm
[/quote]


jnorm,
Welcome to phatmass. I like the way you think. I too have studdied a bit of church history. I do not think a context of 'liberal vs conservative' exists as you think it does. For me, there are two groups of Catholics: those who strive to be obediant to the fullness of the Church and those who are not. 'Libs vs cons' in and of itself is a poor choice of words.

So no, I do not know the context you are trying to get at. I recommend you use obediant and disobediant. Also, naming a heresy by name helps (secularism, modernism, relativism, SSPXism, Manichaeism..etc).

[jswranch]

[quote name='jnorm888' post='981795' date='May 15 2006, 04:18 PM']
Why does it seem like when a liberal dissents he gets to stay in Communion but when a conservative dissents he gets the boot?
.........why are liberals allowed to dissent on doctrines they don't want to believe in and still be safe in the Roman Communion while Conservatives are not allowed to do the same?[/quote]

This is my attempt to get the tread back on topic.

Great question.

Let me rephrase it without the lib vs. con:

[quote]Why does it seem like when someone who supports modernism, relativism, or secularism he gets to stay in Communion but when a pro- [u][b]S[/b][/u]SPX, [u][b]D[/b][/u]issenter from Vatican II/NO, [u][b]F[/b][/u]eeneyism, etc (SDF) he gets the boot?
.........why are supporters of modernism, relativism, or secularism allowed to dissent on doctrines they don't want to believe in and still be safe in the Roman Communion while SDF are not allowed to do the same?[/quote]

My short answer... they don't. I have a buddy who supports the SSPX, questions VII and NO. He is 'safe in the Roman Communion.' I knew a priest who makes the claim of Feeneyism (I think he is still a pastor). While there has been a crack down on SDF, there has also been a crack down on the modernists. Yes you may see someone in a "Call to Action" or "Catholics for Life" t-shirt receive the Eucharist from time to time, but how often do they get to teach a Confirmation class anymore? Besides, it is much easier to ID an SDF than a Modernist.

I don't think this double standard exists to the extent you claim. I have observed quite the opposite. They are equally censured as possible. You seem to like history, compare and contrast the different folks who have been excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome in the last 40 years. You will see both types.

Perhaps you could cite some examples of you question today.

The good news for the CC is a new breed of priest and catholic is on the rise. Modernism in the CC is now the exception and not the norm. Also, keep in mind the CC in the USA does not represent the CC in Italy, Austria, Vietnam..etc. Each has its own struggle and successes.

Edited May 25, 2006 by jswranch