Take Back the Church? (dissenting catholic organizations)

Catholic Exchange ^ | August 21, 2006 | Brian Saint-Paul

[franky]

Their grammar could certainly be improved.

[bornacatholic]

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week... ... But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting... By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--

*Kaiser's People-Church at Council

[siunevada]

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

There ya go. Mr. K has an existing organizational model to follow. No need to start from scratch.

[VidMihi]

Grow Up

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want but do NOT make it personal! Click on my profile page for guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.

[redhead]

This, basically, has been the goal all along. Nothing must do, but an "American" Catholic Church, separate and independent of the Roman Catholic Church. A lot of the dissenters, though, will probably protest that this is not what they had/have in mind; that they want only to "restore" the Roman Catholic Church and make it more "responsive" to today's "modern Catholic." It's about time somebody actually came forward to do what they have been dreaming of for the last 40 years.

[AnAmericanMother]

Well, I don't know where the Diocese of SW Florida stands on the current Episcopalian continuum, but if they are with the Schori/Griswold crowd, they are going to get worse than a Vatican bureaucrat, they'll probably get a non-believer. And if they are with the Network crowd, they have far more difficult issues to deal with . . .

Nope, not for me (I used to be an Episcopalian. GC 2003, and our diocese's wholehearted support for same, was the last straw for us.)

[wideawake]

Grow Up

In other words, you believe that someone who has attained sufficient maturity has the right to stand in judgment over God's Church?

As both a child and a parent of children I have learned that the quintessence of childishness is disobedience, and that "growing up" consists almost entirely of accepting one's responsibilities and duties and carrying them out without selfishness or whining..

The New Testament holds Christ himself up as a model of obedience.

The point of being a Christian is imitating Christ, not following one's own whims. The latter is a spoiled teenager's fantasy of adulthood, not the real thing.

[NYer]

A lot of the dissenters, though, will probably protest that this is not what they had/have in mind; that they want only to "restore" the Roman Catholic Church and make it more "responsive" to today's "modern Catholic." It's about time somebody actually came forward to do what they have been dreaming of for the last 40 years.

Interestingly enough, a small group of us had a similar discussion after liturgy yesterday. It is comforting to see that younger catholics are seeking a more reverent form of worship, which is drawing them to the Eastern Catholic Churches. After a few visits, they return with friends. One of those 'friends' yesterday, turned out to be an Evangelical who wishes to become a Catholic. He was quite 'on to' the local RC bishop and the 30 years of damage he has wreaked to this diocese.

[VidMihi]

Sorry you are offended by what was one of the messages of Vatican II -that Catholics should begin to grow up and assume some responsibility for using their intelligence instead of behaving like little children ' Sister said" and "Father said". In a pilgrim church in the modern world we need honest adult discussion and adult solutions to problems. That is why we have more involvement of laity such as in parish councils etc. We are beyond the time when the Church demanded of their laity that they pray, pay, and obey.period. If we treat each other as children, or if church leaders treat their people as children or ask our people to behave like good little boys and girls then we are no more than those under the control of the taliban. We educated our people in our Catholic Schools and Universities to think, to be responsible, or in other words to "Grow Up".

[redhead]

I agree! It's interesting to see that all the dissenters seem to be of a "certain age." Which is as it should be, I guess. This kind of rebellion appears every once in a while, but never seems to gather much more membership than the initial "consenters." Given time, this "movement" will cease to "move," through simple attrition.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The priest at a local parish here said in one of his homilies a while ago that "it used to be that when people had a problem with the Catholic church....they left."... Let us hope he does not do marriage counseling.If you have a problem - just leave the marriage.

But the problem is, the dissidents want to "stay" --- but to change the definition of marriage.

[bornacatholic]

Please post the relevant passages from Vatican Two which changed Christian Doctrine on the nature of the Hierarchial Constitution of the Church.

You appear to equate obedience with stupidity..Using their intelleigence instead of behaving like little children..." Please enlighten us

What exactly is YOUR "adult solution" to a particular, as yet unidentified by you, "problem?"

I am sure you must have something more than rank insults and references to the "taliban." So far, you are but the pot calling the kettle black.

I have asked you a few questions to which you have yet to respond. I don't know in what way that is an example of "adult behavior." Please enlighten me.

[Religion Moderator]

As the newcomer to this Religion Forum, you must become familiar with our guidelines for posting here.

For instance, we avoid flamewars by not allowing a conversation to shift from a discussion of the issues to making it personal. The remark "grow up" addressed to another poster here is making it personal because it presumes the poster's motives and/or is reading his mind.

To avoid future problems, read all of the guidelines on the above link.

[AnAmericanMother]

FWIW, I looked up the diocese of SW Florida. The bishop, Lipscomb, is a classic "yes man" who wishes the whole controversy over Scripture and modern mores would just go away -- but he is standing with ECUSA and won't disapprove of any heretical notion approved by GC. As one of the posters on an orthodox Anglican website noted, if you're a "yes man" for ECUSA, Griswold is your PB, Schori is your Bishopess to be, you approve of divorced, adulterous, and homosexual priests and bishops, you deny Scripture, and you won't even affirm that Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

If that's the crowd you want to run with, please, go ahead and run with them. After all, they "grew up" and took charge of their church, unlike those authoritarian, mean old Catholics.

[bornacatholic]

Accusations and slights abound but responses to specific questions are non-existent.

The modern, educated, adult Christian in action?

Apparently so.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oops--- I had to leave before I finished that post which compared leaving the Church to leaving a marriage.

Some people want to "stay" in the church, only to change the definition of Church. They dissent on core issues of faith and morals, and so they stay, but not a faithful believers.

It would like a spouse proclaiming his attachment to "marriage," --- refusing separation or divorce --- and yet insisting that the marriage must be reshaped as a union which is not lifelong, not exclusive, not fertile, and not sacramental.

If people are fundamentally dissatisfied with Catholic faith and morals want to stay in order to undermine the faith and redefine the morals, that's not fidelity; it's subversion. It's not loyalty; it's treason.

[RobbyS]

The Church of France under the Ancien regime was virtually autochthronous.
But came the revolution and the Church found itself under a regime that cared little for Christian doctrine but wantede to make the Church a department of government for the sake of stability. Rome refused to recognize the Constitutional Church and soon found itself in the gunsights of the French Army. When the pope died, the French said, well, that was the last of them.

[tmbrrr]

The Second Vatican Council did not do anything that is claimed by "dissenters". The Council itself produced a Constitution on the Church and a Constitution on the Liturgy, both of which reiterated the traditional dogmas and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, including Papal Infallibility when defining faith and morals. Note too that this doctrine was not confined to "ex cathedra" pronouncements. The Council affirmed that when a general council of bishops in union with the Holy Father defines matters of faith and morals, those teachings are infallibly taught. The apostolic nature of the Church is explained and the role of the hierarchy is defined in traditional terms. More participation among the laity is certainly encouraged, but always in line with the fundamental faith and practices of the Church. The so-called reforms of Vatican II did not come from the Council. They were the products of subversive infiltration of the post council commissions. These were not a part of the Council itself and were misused by extremist dissenters to subvert the actual product of the Council. That is why they always beckon to the "spirit" of Vatican II. They know that the actual Second Vatican Council was very traditional in fundamentals. It's purpose was to make these fundamentals more available to the modern world.

[bornacatholic]

"Teaching Church, leave the kids alone," is the chorus of dissenters.

"All in all, they're just another clique in the pall"