why is it?

[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