two wings of the Church?

[D0RK4JP2]

Gday Folks,

It's been a while since I've posted anything. I've been choofing around doing my Catholic thang which has again lead me back to this lovely forum!

My question is basically this "what is with all the different ways someone is Catholic? E.g, modern, orthodox, liberal, conservative, left-winged, right-winged etc etc. I've gone into the reference section trying to find an answer for this. What I have found - maybe from not reading more of the documents in there - is that the documents claim middle-ground status whilst pushing the tradionatlists to the right and the moderns to the left. I then come to think, "is the middle-ground actually the middle, or is it off the handle too?"

I have read documents from both sides of the fence, and those who claim to be on the fence, which have, at least in part, much truth embedded in them. It diabolical however - much what political parties do - to fight for the middle ground and push the others off to the two sides, because then there is division - caused by whom doesn't really matter in this circumstance. 'The battle for middle-ground', engaged in by all parties, cause collateral damage - they somtimes throw the baby out with the bath-water! Such is the case with this forum's reference page on Vatican II.

Now I'm not going to bother arguing for or against the whole 'VCII' dilemma, but why are people still arguing over WHAT HAPPENED? The three parties want to give their official stamp of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED whilst denying the views of the other parties involved. So what I see is history being written with a bias - which is unavoidable - but sometimes the bias is so strong it...yes, throws the baby out with the bath water.

I don't have any particular end to this topic. I just see a big problem in this division and the battle to be the dominant 'party' in the Church. Even the middle-ground people are a division because they seperate themselves from the left and right [albeit suitably so for the protection of deposit of faith].

I guess another question could be, 'is the division necessary?' If it's not, why do people maintain themselves as one of the aforementioned? If it is, who is right?

Aint it just easier to be Catholic?

JMJ,

D0RK4JP2

Edited February 19, 2005 by D0RK4JP2

[Crusader_4]

There is no middle ground its Catholic. To be Catholic means you believe what the Church teaches. Doesnt matter if your left or Right blue or red yellow or green what matters is if your faithful to Jesus and his Bride and then you are neither liberal or conservative you are Catholic.

[Guest Aluigi]

go ten times further right than where the modern right winger is, then take a turn to the right and go until you see a big tree. climb up the tree. that is where the Catholic should be.

if you start out going left then three left turns and a long walk will probably lead you to the tree, it's oftentimes filled with more treachery along the way.

But if you're simply "left" or "right" and have not found this tree, you aren't in the Catholic POV. You gotta be to the right and upsidedown up a tree looking to the east.

[Donna]

An excellent post, Dork.

Sigh. I've not sufficient energy to answer it, much less organize an answer.

Alugi, your reply was not helpful in the least. This young man, whether he knows it or not, created a very dense post. But you are in Lent (and have otherwise grown much of late) and are not as attached to division-awareness as before, IMO.

And a part which you touched on, Dork, reminds me of...that man, I don't know the proper spelling of his name...Hegel? Hegalianism?

Anyway, it's a principle by which the center gets moved, so to speak, and the method is simply to throw out into the think tanks, or public forum (who or whatever has most policy-deciding impact):

1) Thesis (right)
2) Antithesis (left)

And one comes up with synthesis (middle).

Now I'm ashamed...as I may not have my terms accurate at all! It's too sad; when I was hyper and quite ill I could look everything up, but it's better to get well than to be a reference manual, I suppose.

Anyway, yes, you touched on it, that forces (ignorant or not) push right more right and left more left, or perhaps they are -or are also- reactions to the rigidity or laxness of any particular age. BUT the Hegelian thing is that it is desirable, yea [i]necessary[/i], to have a right keeping checks upon the left, so that the center can change slowly enough for the common folk to not get alarmed.

In some minds an example would play out thus: the SSPX is needed in the Church order to slow down the continuous renewal.

Geez, sound like a paranoid conspiracy mongrol, don't I.

Another example would be the FSSP, and how they began strictly as 1962 sacraments...but the protocol 1411 (via C. Hoyos) and other changes now have them moved quite a bit from where they began. I don't think that would apply to Institue of Christ the King, however.

Yet another example would be a regular diosecan seminary moving closer to conservatism...or the younger seminarians moving thus. I guess that's a reverse kind of deal, and seems to be happening (look at Aluigi evolving (!!) mellow-er but seemingly more convicted in orthodoxy).

Well, anyway. Perhaps more to the point is that we've come to a time where the modifying terms (liberal, etc;) are often necessary. And that's weird. It's all out in the open, wheras in the days of Bl Pio Nono, mid-late 1900's that is, liberalism was underground. And there just weren't all the camps...or put it this way, [i]there were[/i], and they became Protestants sects (including the Jansenists who were anti-liberal). The camps literally left - or were kicked out - of the Church.

Nathan has often enough brought up that the churchmen were going south long before V II came about. Just from a common sense perspective he'd bring up that it made no sense for the layity (and clergy) to give up the old in droves if there wasn't rot already way under way. I'm paraphrasing, probably not quite accurate here.

Well! Let's hope some fresher minds come to this.

Edited February 19, 2005 by Donna

[argent_paladin]

The terms liberal and conservative are just a nice way of papering over our differences because we prefer it to "orthodox" and "heretic". It is more of an attempt for a neutral sociological description of the various worldviews that compose modern Catholicism. To deny the differences by having everyone under the same name would be counterproductive because the worldviews are so different. Here are some things that separate Catholics into groups:

1. Development of Doctrine/stance toward Tradition and traditon. This ranges from those who oppose virtually all doctrinal or liturgical changes to those who want to change everything. It is related to the question of how the church is to relate to the world. How should it be in the world but not of it while still being all things to all men?

2. The role of the pope in the life of the Church. This ranges for virtual worship to disdain or even hatred. Should the pope be a first among equals? Should he be more collegial?

3. The relationship of Catholics and non-Catholics. This ranges from the belief that Catholicism is just one of many paths to God to outside the Church there is no salvation (and narrow interpretations of that).

4. Traditional piety. The attitude towards things like the rosary, novenas, chaplets, etc ranges from hostility to daily practice.

5. Attitude toward clergy and the institutional church. This ranges from extreme respect and devotion to hostility and ven desire to see it disappear.

Now, these are all somewhat independent but usually are grouped together in real people. For example, although it is possible to love the Pope but never pray the rosary, it would be unusual. Conservatives usually tend toward one end of the spectrum and liberals toward another. It is much easier to describe a group or person or parish as "conservative" rather than saying that it "respects the pope and clergy, has traditional piety, sees a clear line between those in and not in the church and is distrustful of liturgical or doctrinal innovation."

The most important proxy that indicates whether someone is conservative or liberal IMHO is the persons opinions toward Humanae Vitae and artificial contraception. This touches on papal authority, tradition, sexual morality, the church and the world, etc.

[argent_paladin]

I think that it is important to point out that people don't "join" a party and then get their views from that. Rather, they form their understanding of themselves and Catholicism and then discover than many Catholics disagree with them. So they try to figure out how they disagree and see general differences and find themselves in a broad group because of dividing questions, like artficial contraception.

[Guest Aluigi]

the reason my post wasn't helpful is because I didn't read the thread. I apologize. The only words I really saw in the post were "right, left, liberal, conservative, wings, political parties". Yeah, I'm stupid but that was my political commentary.

anyway, now I guess I should actually say something to the point of the thread. In many ways it was better that dissenting groups were forced out of the Church to keep unity. We should not sacrifice Truth for numbers and the more the Church avoids any chance of driving dissenters away the more the dissenters see they hold power over the Church, and that's not good because they begin to get more and more aggressive and groups like Call to Action and the Rainbow Sash movement can publically claim to be Catholic.

The division is a reality, but what are we to do about it? The answer is not a middle ground, and it is correct that in a sense the middle ground is also simply another faction. Perhaps the Vatican simply needs to lay the smack-down and bite the bullet of possibly loosing numbers.

I don't know the answer, but we shouldn't be taking the middle ground. When heresy arises, the Church's response is generally to really define why it is wrong, that's how we learn from heresy: not by accepting parts of it.

[PedroX]

Good discussion, and thoughtful responses.

Donna, I think you got the Hegel think absolutely right. I'm never quite sure if the Dialectic is descriptive, or prescriptive, but it definitely is at work here. Our opposites keep a check on us, and by constantly defending and refining our position we discard ones that we actually don't believe (even if we thought we did!) and we are forced to seek God all the more. We also are too quick to throw our opponents out with the bathwater, instead of believing that the "Hound of Heaven" will get them. I know He got me in the end, so there is hope for most people!

Donna, you are also right about the directions of the church. So many young men studying for the priesthood are on fire with love for Jesus. Groups of Seminarians go weekly to pray the rosary in front of Abortion clinics. Frequent Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, etc. There is hope. The journey is long and wearying, but God has not forsaken us.

peace...

[Cam42]

[quote]The terms liberal and conservative are just a nice way of papering over our differences because we prefer it to "orthodox" and "heretic". [/quote]

Exactly, right.

[MichaelFilo]

I think a more suffecient answer to your question is no there is only one position within the Church on social matters. There is no left or right as far as theological matters, the Church has given a spectrum, and no one belief would be the thesis or anti-thesis of each other, they are just different views on the same Truth. The Church, in the case I am referencing it as is the body that holds the theological Truths and moral Truths.

There are left and right who claim to represent the Church. The left are almost always wrong. The right in todays world isn't usually far enough right amongst Catholics. The most faithful Catholics will be as far right as the right goes.

God bless,
Mikey

[journeyman]

I'm going to throw this out and go back to watching, because I don't know enough to participate in this thread.

Aren't the left-right distinctions arbitrary and man-made? Do some issues that are used to define left/right/conservative/liberal have any bearing on others used for the same reason?

For example - right to life and receiving eucharist (kneeling/tongue - standing/hand)

there is virtually no debate within the church about the right to life issues (abortion/euthanasia - - capital punishment is still debated - - contraception is still an issue obscured by passive resistance/civil disobedience)

and

considerable debate over east/west - altar rails - kneeling/standing - tongue/hand - facing toward/away - vernacular/latin


(thinking about this, this is probably not the right premise, this is more an application in the social teaching realm than a premise from the sacramental realm)

how about Real Presence

vs.

bread recipe or receiving on the tongue/in the hand


shouldn't what distinguishes Catholics from others be what they believe about the Eucharist - not how they receive it or how it was baked/prepared? - an internal belief in the efficacy of the consecration, as opposed to the external display?

The priest's state of grace has no bearing on the consecration (or so I believe the catechism/GIRM/canon law teach) -- I'm confident the words of the consecration are established, but that certain variations (unintentional omissions or additions) do not invalidate the consecration. I freely confess I don't know where the line between licit/illicit/invalid would fall. But my whole point of jumping into this (and from which I will retreat as soon as I hit the add reply button, unless I chicken out first) is to ask if the "spirit of the sacrament" rather than "letter of the sacrament" should be governing.


what has the greatest bearing in determining one's Catholicity?

It is true that a Baptist can be as pro-life as a Catholic - and the only way to distinguish them may be one of these other outward issues - - if all Catholics have to argue about is the "form" or rubrics of the Mass, then we ought to be a lot more united than we appear

(I suppose I could find Ott and itemize dogma issues - and then try to list them against "related" rubrics - but Ott is somewhere far off in the house - and I'm seriously thinking of chickening out - even though I'd like to see this discussed, so I think I'll stop now)

[argent_paladin]

Journeyman,
you are correct that the divisions are arbitrary. Left-right terminology came from the set up of the Revolutionary National Assembly during the French Revolution. It doesn't fit the Church very well. More, apt, perhaps are those who seek a more individual understanding of Catholicism vs. a more communal understanding, and those who take a more authoritarian understanding vs. a more libertarian one. The biggest differences, IMHO are ecclesiological. Catholics see their church as functioning in many different, and sometimes contradictory ways. Perhaps better than liberal or conservative would be Vatican I catholics, Trent Catholics, Vatical II catholics, and Vatican III catholics. The last group would be those who think that Vatican II didn't go nearly far enough. The big divide would be between the Trent/VatI/VatII catholics and the VatIII Catholics.

[Myles Domini]

I've heard someone say the divisions are arbitrary and to that I nod my head in thorough agreement. They are not the Church's own and are superimposed by 'those outside' for whom all comes in parables i.e. the media who refer to groups without the Church i.e. SSPX and groups within i.e. Opus Dei with the single term 'conservative'.

[quote]Perhaps better than liberal or conservative would be Vatican I catholics, Trent Catholics, Vatical II catholics, and Vatican III catholics. The last group would be those who think that Vatican II didn't go nearly far enough. The big divide would be between the Trent/VatI/VatII catholics and the VatIII Catholics.[/quote]

I would disagree with this definition though since to the uninitiated it might suggest that those who support Vatican II dont support Vatican I etc. In truth there is only one means of classification. Amongst Catholics there are those who obey the magisterium and those who do not. Whatever the reason be it that they dont like the Church's moral teaching or that the Church no longer uses the 1962 Missal, its all the same.

There are only two types of Catholics: The faithful and the dissent. Trying to distinguish the two into sub category's in the case of the later is unneccessary and for the latter is unfeasible.

For instance 3 faithful Catholics go up for Holy Communion (in the Roman rite). One recieves communion in one kind, one recieves it kneeling down, one recieves it in the hand. Which is the [i]conservative?[/i] Answer: all of them. The first one recieved communion in one kind because he read that was the way it used to be, the other because he read that was the way it used to be but feels he should have the cup because he wants to show solidarity to the Bishops decision and support him, and the third also because he read the Catechetical lectures of St Cyril of Jerusalem from the 4th century and has taken to heart the command to make a throne for God out of his unworthy hands. None of them is acting out of liberal motives in spite of how it might appear (especially in the last case). Each is observing an ancient practice according to how they understand it within the boundaries of Magisterial teaching. They are thus all being faithful in their own way.

Likewise, those who support married priests and those who dont who is the more conservative and who the most liberal? If the conservative is the one who appeals to the most ancient tradition then its the one who supports having married priests since before the 11th century that was the tradition. However, for many people the ones who support married priests would be seen as the liberal because they'd view it as something innovative and new. Either way both are merely expressing their views according to the acceptable boundaries of the magisterium. They are thus both being faithful. Dissidence would creep in if either group said: If Rome doesnt back my view I will leave the Church or complain. Neither has the right to do this, if Rome says we want married priests it is law and likewise if she says she doesnt it is law. The theologians represenative of these schools of thought are faithful so long as they remember that and dont try to force the Church to adopt their standpoint.

Thats my two pennies anyway

[hyperdulia again]

bump to remind me that when I have more time I must say something.

[argent_paladin]

I agree 100% that there are only 2 types of Catholics: orthodox and heretical. I said that about 20 posts ago. Unfortunately, there is disagreement as to what exactly is orthodox or heretical. So, we have one group accusing the other of being un-Christian because it supports the war, or the death penalty. Then we have another group calling the first one un-Christian because it desires a change in teaching on homosexuality or women priests. Both say they are right and the other wrong and both classify themselves as faithful Catholics. So, using the term "faithful Catholic" isn't terribly useful because it requires a great deal of explanation depending on the speaker. Conservative/liberal is a shorthand way without explaining what you mean by orthodox. In some ways, I think the best shorthand would be pro-Humanae Vitae and anti-Humanae Vitae, because that divide contains so many others dealing with sexuality, papal authority, role of dissent, etc.

If I could ask one yes/no questions to try to discover if someone is orthodox, I would ask:
1. On the whole was Humanae Vitae a good thing for the Church?

This is because I don't think I would get alot of understanding if I simply asked
"Are you an orthodox Catholic?"
This is because people have different understandings of Catholic and of orthodox, making self-definition virtually impossible.