Biggest danger for the Catholic Church - Modernism or Conservatism? Vatican overtakes dissent Order

Is Modernism the biggest danger for the Churches especially the Roman Catholic? As some opponents of the reform put it, deviation from centuries old traditions equals to apostasy from the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Conservatism in 21st century when we are already in the space age for decades, tries to bring back traditions lost in pre-Vatican II council time. One has to ask, do those traditions date back to the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles? And if not, if they trace their roots to the Middle Ages, they are not the first traditions of Catholicism either. Then why not to revert to the style of life that Peter and the early Christian communities had instead?

People sympathetic to conservative cardinals Burke and Sarah, those around hard-line preachers, seers, recently
the Order of Malta, do not ask such questions. Rather they see in every change happening today, the prophesied End times, the Antichrist, or at least a gross betrayal of the traditional Catholicism.

These days, the row between the Vatican and the Order of Malta reached a new point when the Grand master resigned to the pope. www.telegraph.co.uk... A papal delegate will be appointed to take over the sovereign order. I will not retell the whole recent story of Order of Malta dissent. It is may be the single biggest organized effort to oppose the reform of Vatican. Will the last development clear the path of reform, or will only harden the traditionalists in their positions?

Although not unprecedented, that development comes to show us how big the stakes are on both sides. The side of reformists although bigger in numbers and leaded by the pope himself, is practically blocked for already 4 years of his pontificate. The side of conservatives, fewer in number but far more zealous for their own understanding of catholic faith, do not spare efforts to show officially and in the social networks how erroneous the modernists are. Several influential outlets openly call pope Francis illegitimate.

It should be said also, that the hundreds millions common catholics are far from that clash. Perhaps they do not name themselves conservatives or modernists at all... They'd rather want to see development in the social sphere, especially in Latin America and the other Third World countries, or eased restrictions of moral character, such as condoms and others, in the developed world. But that goes back again to several dozen elderly men clothed in power who have to sit down and decide what is in accordance with the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, and what is not...in that closed devious circle there is little room for fresh breathe, and many common catholics choose to simply walk out....The pace of leaving the church in Brazil the biggest catholic country, is about 1% a year at least...


What is your take on that? If you are not a catholic, do you think the Catholic church has the historic chance to change itself, or it will rather decline under its own weight? If you are catholic, do you think efforts of many honest common Catholics from inside will bring any betterment, or on contrary, you think the traditions should be preserved at all cost in the Third millennium?
Thank you in advance! I may not be able to comment every comment...

I know a lot of so-called modernism in many churches is just an excuse to bend to modern perceptions of morality.

Itching ears and all that. I believe there is a teaching about this.

a reply to: 2012newstart

The greatest danger for all church's is not keeping pace with modern way's of living, a church does not have to compromise on it's standard's but Jesus went to the sinner and they need to get that into there head's, they need to go to the people in a world were it is increasingly hard for the people to go to church what with the demand's of modern life etc.

There are far more Christian's or rather people whom DO regard themselves as Christian, Jesus as the son of God, god incarnate and there saviour than actually sit in cold draughty pew's listening to a aging and usually quite nice gentleman repeat the word's that his diocese have issued for him to do so.

It is also how church's were meant to be all these cold stone coffin's, the first church's were a mixture of House church's were people would gather like any social event, relax, eat drink and talk about Jesus not just listen to some old guy?.
And also Church's we today would call Kibbutz or Communes as they worked on the same principle's exactly, the people in those held all there wealth in common, shared there burden's and looked after one another as an extended family.

So the catholic church's need's to get back to it's root's and so too do many of the other church's.

a reply to: 2012newstart

Catholicism IS apostasy.

Christ was not a traditionalist, or a conservative.

Catholicism paints itself as unchanging in a world of uncertainty.

What it actually translates into is set in it's ways and out of touch.

Sister Act was the best model the Catholic Church could have ever wished for in terms of how to be relevant, but it never took the Hollywood hint on board. The worst thing about catholic mass is that it is just soooo.......... boring. The priests are dullards and have no life experience to draw from so they spout inane and irrelevant garbage from the pulpit for their sermons. They have lost the connection with the people.

And that is why Christianity is dying. Because other denominations are just as bad.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The popular view of anything that has been viewed the way it originally was for a long time is that it is both traditional and conservative these days. You cannot escape those labels.

Pretty much anything that has been done or taught a certain way whether rightly or wrongly is labeled that way.

And there are forces out that will label it conservative and/or traditional and therefore seek to change it for the sake or what they deem progress.

Sadly, this includes Christ's teachings. Some of that moral stuff is just so passe you know.

a reply to: 2012newstart

The biggest problem the Church currently faces is its ancient message of Hate for anyone who is gay, non-christian, female, or eats shellfish. The second biggest problem is that it relies on all the followers being ignorant in a world which is becoming increasingly more intelligent.

originally posted by: MrSensible
a reply to: 2012newstart

The biggest problem the Church currently faces is its ancient message of Hate for anyone who is gay,

Yes, but the bible itself creates bit of a pickle for the faith. It can't be rewritten or it becomes discredited by the faithful. However if you dig through the layers of the bible and read catholic catechism you discover that it actually teaches that gay is ok. The catch (and there is always a catch) is that it's okay to be gay, but it's not okay to be sexually active. But even then, one is perceived as 'living in a state of mortal sin' The person can still be active within the church but cannot receive the sacraments of the holy eucharist, extreme unction or last rights. Kinda like being relegated to a back bench MP in parliament.

non-christian, female, or eats shellfish.

Catholicism has no issue with any of these three. It is not even a particularly active faith when it comes to evangelism any more. Most of it's followers (like me) are born into it.

The second biggest problem is that it relies on all the followers being ignorant in a world which is becoming increasingly more intelligent.

This is very true. The countries where Christianity is growing are the ones where things like education are very poor. But, while the rational mind can pick holes in much of the biblical narrative, there is a mystic side to the religion that is a little harder to refute if one approaches and experiences with an open mind.

a reply to: markosity1973

Yes, but the bible itself creates bit of a pickle for the faith. It can't be rewritten or it becomes discredited by the faithful. However if you dig through the layers of the bible and read catholic catechism you discover that it actually teaches that gay is ok. The catch (and there is always a catch) is that it's okay to be gay, but it's not okay to be sexually active. But even then, one is perceived as 'living in a state of mortal sin' The person can still be active within the church but cannot receive the sacraments of the holy eucharist, extreme unction or last rights. Kinda like being relegated to a back bench MP in parliament.

You must be speaking from the Catholic perspective.

I essentially agree with you on the first part though. It's the actions not the state of being that are the issue as far as I've been able to tell.

In fact, it's not even love in the sense of agape love that is the issue, so you can even love whomever you want, and in that sense, we all love a lot of people of the same gender all the time when we think of our friends and family. It's the erotic love that becomes the problem and the difference because it leads to the action.

As for the state of mortal sin stuff? That's where the difference must be Catholic.

a reply to: markosity1973

But, while the rational mind can pick holes in much of the biblical narrative, there is a mystic side to the religion that is a little harder to refute if one approaches and experiences with an open mind.

Well, I mean sure... but if you accept it as just a "mystical" set of morality tales (in other words, not rooted in logic or reality), then there's little more to it beyond what you can get out of Grimm's Fairytales.

non-christian, female, or eats shellfish.

As for this, I don't know enough about the beliefs of each individual sect of Christianity (and there are quite a few with incredibly minor differences). I'm only going off of what the Bible says. And it says don't eat shellfish, beware of false prophets (non-christians believe in other prophets), and that women are the property of men.

originally posted by: MrSensible
a reply to: markosity1973

But, while the rational mind can pick holes in much of the biblical narrative, there is a mystic side to the religion that is a little harder to refute if one approaches and experiences with an open mind.

Well, I mean sure... but if you accept it as just a "mystical" set of morality tales (in other words, not rooted in logic or reality), then there's little more to it beyond what you can get out of Grimm's Fairytales.

non-christian, female, or eats shellfish.

As for this, I don't know enough about the beliefs of each individual sect of Christianity (and there are quite a few with incredibly minor differences). I'm only going off of what the Bible says. And it says don't eat shellfish, beware of false prophets (non-christians believe in other prophets), and that women are the property of men.

You forgot to mention all the stuff about slavery. How can the Bible be the word of God if slavery is not immoral?

originally posted by: MrSensible
a reply to: markosity1973

As for this, I don't know enough about the beliefs of each individual sect of Christianity (and there are quite a few with incredibly minor differences). I'm only going off of what the Bible says. And it says don't eat shellfish, beware of false prophets (non-christians believe in other prophets), and that women are the property of men.

You are reading too much into the old testament.

Jesus is the new covenant that replaced the old and therefore some things like food groups being excluded from the diet are no longer considered whats necessary as part of following God.

As for the role of women, Catholicism and the ancient orthodox faiths, along with the odd newer protestant sect all highly revere the Virgin Mary as the mother of God. Yep, you heard right, the ancient faiths acknowledge and revere her because without her there would have been no Jesus. Naturally it is also understood that if he were not Jesus she would have been a nobody.

Mary Magdelan is also another female rock star in the faith. She is the ultimate bad girl turned good role model. Plus there are many female saints.

So, women are actually held in very high regard in the faith.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: markosity1973

Yes, but the bible itself creates bit of a pickle for the faith. It can't be rewritten or it becomes discredited by the faithful. However if you dig through the layers of the bible and read catholic catechism you discover that it actually teaches that gay is ok. The catch (and there is always a catch) is that it's okay to be gay, but it's not okay to be sexually active. But even then, one is perceived as 'living in a state of mortal sin' The person can still be active within the church but cannot receive the sacraments of the holy eucharist, extreme unction or last rights. Kinda like being relegated to a back bench MP in parliament.

You must be speaking from the Catholic perspective.

Yes, born, baptised, First Holy Communion and Confirmation of Faith Catholic.

As for the state of mortal sin stuff? That's where the difference must be Catholic.

Yes, it is the act of sex that is considered wrong in Catholicism too. To be gay and attracted, even in love with another male is not considered sinful. Just the act of sex is.

As for living in a state of mortal sin, yes it is a very catholic thing.

What it actually means is someone whom is repeating the same mistake (sin) over and over or those who commit a sin that cannot be undone (i.e. divorce or children out of wedlock) . The church does not cast these people out, rather it encourages them to attend mass still and go to confession (another very catholic thing) and do penance. The church believes that God works in mysterious ways and that his grace may still change them. Alcoholics, drug addicts, single mothers who had their child out of wedlock and even the divorced are some of the other people also fall into this category.

But these people cannot partake in the most holy of rituals ie they cannot receive communion, they cannot be blessed if they are ill and they do not receive the last rites.

The Church makes no statement on whether these people go to heaven or are condemned to hell either. It simply says that God is the final judge.

originally posted by: MrSensible
a reply to: markosity1973

But, while the rational mind can pick holes in much of the biblical narrative, there is a mystic side to the religion that is a little harder to refute if one approaches and experiences with an open mind.

Well, I mean sure... but if you accept it as just a "mystical" set of morality tales (in other words, not rooted in logic or reality), then there's little more to it beyond what you can get out of Grimm's Fairytales.

non-christian, female, or eats shellfish.

As for this, I don't know enough about the beliefs of each individual sect of Christianity (and there are quite a few with incredibly minor differences). I'm only going off of what the Bible says. And it says don't eat shellfish, beware of false prophets (non-christians believe in other prophets), and that women are the property of men.

If I may just quickly interject
You do know Christians are not Jewish, we don't have the Old Testament laws over us
Hence Jewish laws.
Christians have a new covenant under Christ

That's basic christianity

We can eat shellfish, no laws but love others, yes even gays

a reply to: markosity1973

well I guess the Catholic church should and could change a bit of that hardline non-dogmatic rules. Other churches already changed it. I don't know what or how much. Certainly there are homosexuals in the Bible, or those who had enough homoerotic stories. David and Jonathan one example. We know of others in the Gospels as well.

Jesus was rather forgiving to all. He forgave the prostitute, he spoke with the Samaritan, he healed the male slave of the centurion (what concern of one slave on the side of the centurion, some assume he was more than a slave).

Moreover, in its long history the Church knows all of it within its own ranks...

So may be it is the last opportunity the Catholic Church changes a bit of that. Or...the Anglican Holy Communion is no less valid than the Catholic. Many divorcees simply go to the next door anglican/episcopal church where they are welcome, with identical mass and rites. No one has monopoly on God's finger... You can say that for the Orthodox either, but the Anglican is closest to the Catholic in terms of rites.

However, my point was slightly different in this thread. We see a major stand-off between hierarchy on both sides. Right now the drama in the Order of Malta seems to end peacefully, after exchanged sharpest rhetoric in post Vatican II. Order of Malta first quoted its sovereignity as reason NOT to cooperate with the Vatican appointed commission, something unprecedented in recent time revolt against Vatican. What seems as almost peaceful resignation letter of the grand master, perhaps came after fierce battles behind door. Were there treats of excommunication for example?


By now, four cardinals have signed an open letter so called Dubia, questioning the pope's encyclical Amoris Letitia where he practically allows for divorcees to receive Holy Communion under discernment of local bishops. While he didn't allow gay people to sacraments officially, although he said the Catholic Church must apologize to them for so many historical mistreatments. The Dubia wasn't answered by the pope, however the chief of the doctrinal office cardinal Muller said there wasn't anything contrary to the faith in the pope's Amoris Letitia. The four cardinals or at least one of them cardinal Burke, threatened to issue a "correction" to the papal teaching. Something not seen since Middle Ages pontificate of John XXII about his different personal view of afterlife...

Apparently the problems of the Catholic Church now are not of dogmatic character. And IMO they are not so much of whether divorsees or even gay people would receive silently Holy Communion. In fact, there are quite many divorcees and gay people who DO RECEIVE Holy Communion on the Catholic Sunday masses, and do not deem it necessary to confess beforehand. There are many others who live officially within a family but commit things not allowed by the Catholic Church, such as contraceptives. They also receive Holy Communion en masse without any previous screening by priests. It is a wide practice in the Church of the Western countries, if not elsewhere. So probably the cardinals and bishops at the last Synods tried to put in legal frames what is already a common practice for decades. The papal letter Amoris Letitia is by no means such a big danger for the common catholics.

I don't see THAT as the major problem of the Roman Church. Let remember only 4 years ago it shattered during the previous pontificate of Benedict for questions of quite different nature, to the point to require the resignation of the pope himself.... Perhaps those who elected Francis don't want to see him going like Benedict did 4 years ago. They elected him with a clear green light to do reforms. Majority is majority. If we have not just four but a dozen cardinals opposing the rest one hundred, then...

Where is the point the so hard kept unity in the Catholic church will be broken? Will the reform go on despite opposition, or will the opposition of fewer but powerful people manage to effectively stop it? Will the 4 + cardinals opt to create a parallel structure instead? But that will be already a schism. Until now, they keep saying the pope is not in "heresy". But what if tomorrow they say he committed heresy in their eyes? I think that, and not whether the poor sinners receive holy Communion, is a much bigger problem for the Catholic Church that tries to reform itself walking already behind other Christian denominations. And...all say "Jesus said so..." The monopoly of the Middle ages is no more existent. Pope went to Sweden to greet the Lutheran church leaders for the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's Reformation, and to Thank Luther for his reformation ideas...

a reply to: 2012newstart

I think the Catholic church itself, the Vatican, has more deeper problems than since Vatican II has come and its the seven hills that Vatican rest upon..... and its upcoming destruction....and I've seen it..... Peter Square dead monks. nuns, priests and tourist laying dead everywhere....an earthquake (Italy has been having many lately) swallowing the Vatican ..... COMPLETE .... all its property that rests on seven hills.

The destruction of the Vatican is foretold in the book of Revelations.

Further questions ask your catholics.... I am not one.

a reply to: 2012newstart

do you think the Catholic church has the historic chance to change itself,

Given the Churches moves in the past ,change is a two way street or maybe working both sides of a street is a better description ,especially with a Jesuit Pope. Its interesting to consider the Eastern Orthodox Church when considering the picture of history both have arrived at . Makes you wonder who actually broke away from who . The two sides to that story shouldn't be that hard to figure out even without the narratives we have .In fact I think the narratives may actually blur the picture and the truth may be something different.

a reply to: markosity1973

And that is why Christianity is dying. Because other denominations are just as bad.

Although I would agree in part to the second part of that ,I would disagree with the first part in whole .If it was dying we would not see new denominations and newer bigger Church buildings being built .Not to mention the thousands of new house Churches that are being borne .Could it be that when the RCC decides to close one of its older rural Churches that smaller house churches are borne ? Could it also be that these new house Churches are made up of believers that look to the scripture for their guidance instead of the older traditional models where the head Church in that denomination sends the marching orders down .

a reply to: dfnj2015

You forgot to mention all the stuff about slavery. How can the Bible be the word of God if slavery is not immoral?

Is it possible that the Bible could be the Bible despite slavery ? The USA was the USA despite slavery . Could it be that the Bible is the inspired word of God despite the charters and conditions we find in it?