Can liberal Christianity be saved?

[MKJ]

Newman more than likely did not mean in matters of teaching.
The laity do not correct the clergy in matters of teaching - as an example - dogma's and doctrines. As long as it conforms to exact teaching of said doctrines/dogmas.

The laity can go to a higher up and report some crazy stuff being taught - like some clergyman might be teaching women can be priests, or homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle choice.
That's how we safe vouch the Church in the terms he was discussing.

But no, he would never warrant that the laity can make choices of what is taught.

Would you say then that Arianism was not a matter of doctrine and dogma?

 

[Elvisman]

Would you say then that Arianism was not a matter of doctrine and dogma?

It absolutely is a metter of doctrine and dogma.
However, the Church never declared that Arianism was correct. As a matter of fact - it condemned this heresy at the Council of Nicaea.

The Church has never taught an incorrect doctrine. Jesus guaranteed His Church would be guided to ALL truth by the Holy Apirit (John 16:12-15) - and whatever she ordained on earth would be ordained in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:18, John 20:23)

 

[steve_bakr]

It absolutely is a metter of doctrine and dogma.
However, the Church never declared that Arianism was correct. As a matter of fact - it condemned this heresy at the Council of Nicaea.

The Church has never taught an incorrect doctrine. Jesus guaranteed His Church would be guided to ALL truth by the Holy Apirit (John 16:12-15) - and whatever she ordained on earth would be ordained in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:18, John 20:23)

According to Newman, even though Arianism was condemned by the Council of Nicaea, the belief persisted to the point of being held by the majority of bishops. Indeed, at one point in Church history, it looked as if Arianism was winning out, but--according to Newman--the faithful held tenaciously to the belief in the divinity of Christ until such time as the Nicaean teaching held sway again among the bishops.

Newman affirmed the inerrancy of the whole Church, but he also held that there can be times when the teaching authority is temporarily not functioning--or is suspended, as it were. He gave the example of Arianism. But in our study of Church history, we can also cite such examples as slavery, usury, the heliocentric theory, the teaching of Aristotelian propositions, religious liberty and Church and state issues.

In addition to "Consulting the Faithful on Matters of Doctrine," Newman also wrote, "On the Development of Doctrine," a concept which was restated by Vatican II and is contained in the Catechism.

Indeed, my own reading of the history of the Church demonstrates that, at any given time in its history, the Church is a "work in progress," as it always faces new challenges due to the "advance" of civilization and the increase in the pool of human knowledge.

That the Church can make the previously mentioned changes in its positions is not a criticism; it is a good thing, in my view. It is why Church Tradition is described as Living; it is an ongoing process.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

It is said by the Church the orthodox Catholic faithful with a small remnant of clergy resisted the Arians and corrected THEM on the faith. They held the faith, while the heretics held the Church (similar to how the Modernists hold our churches today, while the orthodox Catholic faithful remnant remains throughout the world, though small).

 

[SeventhValley]

Interesting response to the article from author Diana Bass...

His argument, however, is neither particularly original nor true. It follows a thesis first set out in a 1972 book, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing by Dean Kelley. Drawing on Kelley's argument, Douthat believes that in the 1960s liberal Christianity overly accommodated to the culture and loosened its ties to tradition. This rendered the church irrelevant and led to a membership hemorrhage. Over the years, critics of liberal churches used numerical decline not only as a sign of churchgoer dissatisfaction but of divine displeasure. To those who subscribe to Kelley's analysis, liberal Christianity long ago lost its soul--and the state of Protestant denominations is a theological morality tale confirmed by dwindling attendance.

That was 1972. Forty years later, in 2012, liberal churches are not the only ones declining. It is true that progressive religious bodies started to decline in the 1960s. However, conservative denominations are now experiencing the same. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention, one of America's most conservative churches, has for a dozen years struggled with membership loss and overall erosion in programming, staffing, and budgets. Many smaller conservative denominations, such as the Missouri Synod Lutherans, are under pressure by loss. The Roman Catholic Church, a body that has moved in markedly conservative directions and of which Mr. Douthat is a member, is straining as members leave in droves. By 2008, one in ten Americans considered him- or herself a former Roman Catholic. On the surface, Catholic membership numbers seem steady. But this is a function of Catholic immigration from Latin America. If one factors out immigrants, American Catholicism matches the membership decline of any liberal Protestant denomination. Decline is not exclusive to the Episcopal Church, nor to liberal denominations--it is a reality facing the whole of American Christianity.

Whole article....

Diana Butler Bass: Can Christianity Be Saved? A Response to Ross Douthat

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Liberalism in Christianity, inevitably leads to Apostasy from Christianity, as it entails the capitulation of what once where epoused to be essential Truths of the faith --- to give way to the current beliefs of the contemporary or modern culture. I.E. Christianity is accommodating itself, via Liberalism, to the world. Whenever, folks seen little or seemingly little difference between Liberal Christianity and being a non-christian worldling, the thought occurs: 'Why Bother?!' Thereafter, apostasy ensues.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

What many so-called 'conservatives' and moderates do not realise within the present-day 'Catholic Church' is that it is the Liberals who are in power. They may claim that they 'are conservative'; yet, in the 60s, it was the Liberals who effectuated and won their Revolution of Vatican II. It is they who are in control of the hierarchy --- who are the hierarchy. The Fruits of the modern day: corruption and abuse in the sacraments & liturgy, sex abuse scandal, corruption in the Church, tolerance of evils, etc. are the fruits of the reign of Liberalism in the church run amok.

If folks think Paul VI, JPII, and BXVI are conservative: they're dead-wrong. They were the liberal ones at the council! They permitted or allowed this mess to happen.

Even if Benedict XVI wants to 'reform' the Church, rather it seems as if he simply wants a tidy, perhaps slightly more moderated Liberal Revolution to be institutionalised or to become encorporated as part of the magisterium and 'tradition' of the Modern Church. To legitimise the Modernists' Reformation in New Order Sacraments, Liturgy (New Order liturgy).

Lex Credendi, Lex Orandi --- the Law of Prayer is or reflects the Law of belief. Radical changes in liturgy reflect or effectuate radical changes in belief and doctrine. And that, simply put has happened as a result of the Modernist's Revolution in the 60s;in the Council, in its alleged 'spirit', and in practise by the clergy and laity who took over the reins of power.

And we see the fruits of Modernity coming home to roost today: the largest Apostasy the Church has ever seen in over a millennium or, perhaps, maybe in all of her history.

One may disagree with me.

 

[bibledoctor]

If you're a rigid conservative for the most part of your lifetime you're going to want a liberal retirement...

 

[JoabAnias]

It can be saved if it repents and converts.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Would you say then that Arianism was not a matter of doctrine and dogma?

Arian was a heretic.
His theology was recanted.

According to Newman, even though Arianism was condemned by the Council of Nicaea, the belief persisted to the point of being held by the majority of bishops. Indeed, at one point in Church history, it looked as if Arianism was winning out, but--according to Newman--the faithful held tenaciously to the belief in the divinity of Christ until such time as the Nicaean teaching held sway again among the bishops.

Newman affirmed the inerrancy of the whole Church, but he also held that there can be times when the teaching authority is temporarily not functioning--or is suspended, as it were. He gave the example of Arianism. But in our study of Church history, we can also cite such examples as slavery, usury, the heliocentric theory, the teaching of Aristotelian propositions, religious liberty and Church and state issues.

In addition to "Consulting the Faithful on Matters of Doctrine," Newman also wrote, "On the Development of Doctrine," a concept which was restated by Vatican II and is contained in the Catechism.

Indeed, my own reading of the history of the Church demonstrates that, at any given time in its history, the Church is a "work in progress," as it always faces new challenges due to the "advance" of civilization and the increase in the pool of human knowledge.

That the Church can make the previously mentioned changes in its positions is not a criticism; it is a good thing, in my view. It is why Church Tradition is described as Living; it is an ongoing process.

Actually Arian heresy survived 40 years [liberalism is longer] - and it was becoming known in the east - and the many eastern Bishops knew it was wrong - very wrong - and held a council. [With Papal legates]
It was admonished.
Just because heresy is allowed to take root [liberal theology is one we now have] doesnt make it fact.
It only means rebellious ppl have existed and continue to exist. But what is purported - isnt going to survive.
All the liberal theologies they try so hard to bring in - were all already pronounced heresy.
Its like taking a thumb and plugging a damn that has cracks as huge as 3 feet in height and saying it will happen. It just wont.
Even if the Church is slow to respond - doesnt mean someone made progress. It just means the Church is slow to pronounce individuals and excommunicate in our times.

 

[Basil the Great]

American politics aside - which have no room in the Universal Church under the Teacher in Rome - the Church has one set of teachings. No room for heterodox ideas...as it was - is and will remain so til the day the Lord returns.

The Church is not opine to a democratic vote of what she teaches.
She never will.

Unless or until ppl get that into their heads in America where they think freedom of religion means free to change the Church - they put their souls on the mat and are wagering with their salvation.

Sorry - freedom of religion or wars for such a right [being undone by Obama] - still does not constitute any rights whatsoever to lead in heresy.

IF heresy was an acceptable form of practice - the Apostles wouldnt have warned against it - Christ wouldnt have promised against it - and the Church wouldnt have excommunicated hundreds for it prior to this generation.

Most of the list - of the changes ppl THINK they can make - are amusing. It wont happen, it cannot happen.

See, dogmatic teachings will never ever change. No matter what sheep want to wander away - the Lord isnt ever going to say 'Come back - we'll do it your way now. I see my error in Judgment on how I always wanted things.'

There will never be:
Female priests
Abortion acceptance
Euthanasia acceptance
Homosexual openness.

etc etc

Married or unmarried priests are a discipline. And so are a lot of other things someone listed in another thread - i didnt even feel like addressing.

Discerning dogma - doctrine and discipline is an easy task if at first we seek to discover them.

As my mother has often told me, "never" is a long time. I agree re: abortion. I almost certainly agree re: homosexual acceptance and euthanasia acceptance. However, I do not necessarily agree re: female priests. If there become a very severe shortage of priests in the future and allowing married men to become priests still fails to provide sufficient numbers, then the Church may well be forced to reconsider it's position on female priests. After all, how effective can the Church be as an institution if it does not have enough priests to serve it's members? Mind you, I am not predicting such a change, especially in our lifetime. However, who knows what the future holds if the current shortage of priests become a crisis?

 

[WarriorAngel]

As my mother has often told me, "never" is a long time. I agree re: abortion. I almost certainly agree re: homosexual acceptance and euthanasia acceptance. However, I do not necessarily agree re: female priests. If there become a very severe shortage of priests in the future and allowing married men to become priests still fails to provide sufficient numbers, then the Church may well be forced to reconsider it's position on female priests. After all, how effective can the Church be as an institution if it does not have enough priests to serve it's members? Mind you, I am not predicting such a change, especially in our lifetime. However, who knows what the future holds if the current shortage of priests become a crisis?

Nope. It is dogma so it cannot happen. So it will not happen.

That's where the problem thrives in todays world - to think something will 'have to' happen is saying heresy will rise - and the gates of hell shall prevail. Jesus said they wouldnt. 'Gates of hell = heresy' which is only heresy when the Church herself allows or teaches as such. NOT that men inside will favor or petition for such - but when the Church actually condones it. It isnt going to happen. Or Jesus word is ??

Look - if the Church is ever that far gone - Jesus will just allow the end. Because His promise stands - and His Church already pronounced female priests will never happen. Never. Ever.