I suggested a letter to the Bishop, as it appears this particular priest is rather intractable, and a one-on-one, without authority, would seem pointless. The priest shortage is what it is, as we could not find one for an anointing of my daughter before surgery recently, but it would be better to hear no homily than one rife with dissent.
Once I heard Al Kresta on EWTN use the faithful vs. unfaithful descriptors, I realized that it might seem uncharitable, but, as Father Corapi says “It is no charity to affirm someone in their sin” The terms orthodox/heterodox are exactly right, but “heterodox” almost sounds to my ear like one of two appropriate ‘choices’ in our corrupt culture which is hung up on ‘choice’.
I didn’t mean that you couldn’t object to the homily. I meant that a homily is not the place for a priest to take on his own bishop. I know priests who don’t agree with our bishop; they don’t trumpet their discontent from the ambo. I meant the laity ought to follow the lead of priests like that.
That smacks very strongly of ignorance. A certain type of ignorance that does nothing but divide the Church To equate orthodoxy with being conservative is simply wrong. PLENTY of orthodox liberals and heterodox conservatives in the Catholic Church…
Just what is a “liberal progressive” (sic) when it comes to the Catholic Church? Can you actually define it without using an inflammatory example of a single person or instance? It’s ludicrous to suggest that a progressively-minded Catholic be “unfaithful.” That’s bigoted malarkey.
I was sorta thinking the same thing. “Traditional Catholics” sound like the newest group of Protestants in many ways.
If you’re referring to those not in communion with the Pope, then they can’t really be considered “traditional Catholics.”
The problem is, it is exceedingly difficult in our day to be politically and socially “progressive” and an orthodox Catholic at the same time. In fact, being an orthodox Catholic on, for instance, the moral issues of gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia – that is, being staunchly opposed to them – disqualifies one from being socially progressive in the eyes of the vast majority of the social progressives. To them, he or she is a social conservative living in the dark ages. And embracing these issues – voting for them, supporting them – means you’re not an orthodox Catholic but a really bad Catholic.
From the stridency of your reply, I must be very careful not to cause affront. Try this: Someone who is disobedient to the core teachings of the church, yet insists they are a good Catholic and receives communion while actively supporting gravely sinful acts or omissions. The classic “cafeteria Catholic” who picks and chooses what they agree with in church doctrine. A member of “Catholics for a free choice” for example.
An unnamed, Baptized and Confirmed Catholic who does not adhere to church teaching on the “big five” areas of moral truth. Abortion, Euthanasia, Homosexual unions, Fetal (Embryonic) stem cell research and Human cloning.
I must point out that this is an oxymoron, based on the commonly held definitions of the terms you use.
Yeah, but they make comments like "T"raditional Catholics as if they were some sort of separate group. They discuss doing away with the OF in favor of the EF or how screwed-up the “post Vatican II Church” is.If you’re referring to those not in communion with the Pope, then they can’t really be considered “traditional Catholics.”
If you’re referring to those that are, that is an insult. They don’t go around demanding that the Church ordain married men or recognize same sex marriages like so called “Catholic” groups like Call to Action do.
Not at all. That’s a ludicrous comment. Socially I am fairly liberal, politically I am moderate and liturgically I am very orthodox and reverent/solemn which some equate to being “traditional”, which is often a misnomer. Some of the most dissenting Catholics I know would lebel themselves as being “traditional.”
You are simply wrong. While that might be true of some of what people label as “progress”, it’s simply not true across the board.
I would suggest your “empirical evidence” comes from a sample that in no way accurately represents the Church in the USA, let alone the World. This is a big deal. People make their minds up often on very limited or skewed information and then preach it as if it were the gospel truth.
Does Christ Shepherd with a post VII theology? Is there a distinct difference pre and post? Which one is correct? Are both correct or both incorrect?
Wondering how do you define that?
While I still don’t know what a “liberal progressive” is, it’s terribly ignorant to suggest those qualities accurately describe or define a progressive-mind Catholic or that their inverse necessarily defines a “traditional” Catholic. While I give you credit for typing out your feelings, you did nothing but outline some personal beliefs that have no basis in fact.
How is a progressive minded Catholic defined?
Not sure that I can brew-up a definition like so many else feel they can do around there. But I can give some examples.
Just trying to follow your reasoning here, are you claiming those who self identify as Traditional would say St. Vincent de Paul society and other Catholic groups are “liberal”?