www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Liberal and weak clergy

Liberal and weak clergy blamed for empty pews [timesonline.co.uk]

This report could have easily been talking about the Catholic Church. The liberals are killing the Church and in many cases have already killed the Church.

Amen, Amen. At last my opinions have been confirmed.

"Liberal" is a difficult word to define, and never more so than when applied to the clergy. Nor are all "liberal" clergy necessarily "weak".
Incognitus

Not only is "liberal" a difficult word to define, but what specifically are these "moral values and treasured beliefs" to which the article refers?

That having been said, I would love to see the hard numbers and the specific questions asked.

Let's have a good look at the methodology before jumping all over this one, shall we?

Yours,

hal

I believe the questions are basic:

1. There is a God.
2. God had a Son Jesus (Trinity)
3. There is a Hell.
4. Satan is real.
5. Sin is real.
etc...

A good list can be found here:
10 things that could land your vicar in trouble [news.bbc.co.uk]

These questions I believe could be asked to many Catholic priest.

Yes, I do believe one can find priests who are weak in their commitment to orthodox doctrine. But another problem I have observed, is priests trying to serve too many masters. Scripture is quite clear in condemning that as doomed to failure.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

It seems to me that, when one thinks a brother is in danger, the Gospel is clear. In St. Matthew 18, it says: "If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother."

Apart from that, the counsel of the Prayer of St. Ephrem the Syrian, especially during this season of the Great Fast, is telling:

"Yes, O Lord and King,
grant that I may see my own sins
and not judge my brother,
for You are holy,
now and ever and forever. Amen."

Pray for priests who have failed; don't spend this kind of time posting villifications. This is not going to either win the erring priest over or improve things.

To quote Tennyson, "More things are wrought by prayer than the world knows of."

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

Unorthodox clergy (hmm is that ok with the label police?) are a big problem in Europe and America and are big part of the problem with the apathy in the pews. If your own priest and bishop does not preach the gospel of sin and redemption than why show up. I left a church like this. They never preached about sin everything was about being nice nothing about evils of our society heck my kindergarten teacher told me to be nice if that's all I am going to get form my pastor I could just visit a kindergarten class from time to time.

Ray Stiegler has succeeded in proving my point - that it is nearly impossible to define what is meant by "liberal" clergy. His second item - the link to the list discussing the 39 articles - would have the overwhelming majority of Catholic and Orthodox clergy in major trouble, but that doesn't make the Catholic and Orthodox clergy "liberal". I believe in transubstantiation, I do not believe in double predestination, I think the "Royal Supremacy" is balderdash, and on and on. But I have never claimed to believe in the 39 Articles. Does Ray wish to put me on trial for heresy?

In his first point, Ray offers a list of sorts for judging the "liberalism" of a cleric. Does the cleric believe that:

"1. There is a God.
2. God had a Son Jesus (Trinity)
3. There is a Hell.
4. Satan is real.
5. Sin is real.
etc..."

Well, I believe in God, so I guess I pass that one. I shall for once be charitable and assume that the use of the past tense in item 2 is just bad grammar - but those of us who know what the homoousion is (and anyone who sets himself up as a judge of orthodox Christian doctrine had better know what the homoousion is) as aware that bad grammar can land one in deep theological trouble. Surely the Trinity is not some sort of parenthetical add-on to grammatically questionable Christology?
Items 3, 4 and 5 - a majority of this list - are depressing; they strongly imply that Ray wants a "Gospel of Condemnation". Before one can get to an intelligible discussion of Hell, Satan and/or sin (wrong order; sin should be first on that sub-list) one needs to know the doctrine of God's universal love, distasteful though some may find that doctrine.
The two key Christian doctrines which Ray does not even imply are the Incarnation and the Resurrection, each of which is vastly more important than a "doctrine" of the reality of sin, of all things (sub specie aeternitatis, sin flies in the face of reality; that's what's wrong with it).
My apologies to Ray; he has invited the theologically educated to take lots of cheap shots, but I must confess to being somewhat discourteous in accepting that invitation. My serious points are two:
first, the Gospel is the Good News, not the Bad News; it is not unorthodox to preach and stress the Good News.
second, theology does in fact require education - many people seem to object to that point but it remains valid.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

Thank you for saying much of what I wanted to say, and much more succinctly. In all charity, I must say that I am quite tired of the gloom and doom which permeates so many posts these past months. The press tends to sensationalize anything that puts down or calls into question Christian beliefs. These "surveys" often have sloppy methodology and loaded questions. The credentials of those who take them are rarely noted. I seriously doubt that the majority of those who compose and disseminate these surveys (and that is not a reference to any posters on this board, but to those who propagate the surveys in the media) have any trace of theological acumen. I`d bet that most of them would not know the difference between transubstantiation and transliteration.

Peace,

Charles, who should not be up this early on any morning.

I would like to add to the great response from incognitus and say not only does theology take education, for those who do not have the education, when they hear a theological point, they will often think it is "liberal" when it is absolutely traditional. Distinctions made in theology, like in every discipline, require a depth which the average layman does not have. Let alone those making surveys, with biases and a desire to make a point....

Theology does take education, but it also takes humility. In every century, the Church has called to task theologians who were educated, but also wrong. Properly practiced, theology requires submission to the teaching authority of the Church - a bitter pill for some to swallow, but necessary.

On the other hand, many people who have not studied theology think they are the inrerpeters of the Magisterium, and so judge theologians based upon false notions of Magisterial teaching.

I think you have touched on the problem with some theologians - they think they are above the Magisterium - or are the Magisterium. Being a theologian does not give one teaching authority equal to the Church.

Dear Friends,

Ah, yes, the 39 Articles of Religion!

When they were drawn up, the Catholic traditionalists in the Church of England (today's "Anglo-Catholics") considered them to be the worst form of theological liberalism!

And today they are a standard for traditional orthodoxy in Anglicanism? Ummm...

Interestingly enough, the 39 articles were drawn up as a kind of "catch all" to allow for various versions of "high" "middle" and "low" Anglicans to be comfortable within a church that was held together by . . . the monarchy, very much like the role of the Byzantine Emperor in calling together Ecumenical Councils and the like.

One reason for the role of the king in Anglicanism was that there were Evangelicals who doubted the Apostolic Succession and the role of bishops.

So the 39 Articles are a product of their time.

Later, there were RC's, like John Henry Newman, who could interpret the 39 Articles in a very "Catholic" way, showing their context and how they could be so interpreted to agree with . . . the Council of Trent!

That's not theological orthodoxy.

Up here in hockey-land Canada, that's called "fast-sticking!"

Alex