E
ethelzguy
Guest
You said it better than I did
- Status
S
Spiller
Guest
What “liberal issues?” What do you even mean by “liberal?”
What problems?
Don’t get sucked into the world of searching out problems (perceived or real) and then spending your spiritual life carping about them. Find yourself a good Catholic parish – Eastern or Western (or both like me) and start getting fed by God’s gifts…
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
Well, I think it’s because we are using different definitions for “liberal.”
To me, pro-choice/pro-gay marriage/anti- humanae vitae “Catholics” are “liberals,” not people who like the OF or who don’t like Latin.
And I do believe, no one can stand the return of the EF less than heterodox liberals, because it means their “Spirit of Vatican II” age is ending, and that there will never be women priests, pro-choice teachings, legal divorce, etc.
S
Spiller
Guest
LOL! That’s simply not true.
S
Spiller
Guest
That’s horribly ignorant, but at least you have the resolve to say what you believe. Let’s break this down:
Pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marraige, anti-Humanae Vitae Catholics would be DISSENTING Catholics. Nothing intrinsically “liberal” (or “conservative”) about them.
Catholics who dislike the OF or who don’t care for Latin are just that – Catholics who dislike the OF or who don’t care for Latin. Nothing intrinsically “liberal” (or “conservative”) about them.
I think this ignorance is what frustrates a great many self-proclaimed traditionalists. They actually believe canards like “liberals do not like Latin” and they go from there – in a downward and often times angry spiral.
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
I’ve never heard of a priest that offers some form of the Latin Mass who wasn’t reverent. Why would they take the time to learn the complex rituals of the Latin liturgy if they didn’t put God first in their lives? Not to say not learning Latin equates to godlessness, but my point still stands
And its not only conservatives who equate Latin with orthodoxy- many (all) liberal priests I know (ones that allow people on the altar, use glass chalices, don’t even follow NO rubrics) are pretty ardent in “don’t use Latin”.
And its not only conservatives who equate Latin with orthodoxy- many (all) liberal priests I know (ones that allow people on the altar, use glass chalices, don’t even follow NO rubrics) are pretty ardent in “don’t use Latin”.
M
MrJim
Guest
The issues being brought up in this thread would qualify [OK dissenting then]~not so much the Latin vs. NO Mass but rather the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-women priest, etc sorts of issues; things that the CCC speak clearly about but some Catholic folks fight against.
BTW this thread wasn’t meant to turn into some kind of argument http://bestsmileys.com/argue/2.gif ~just looking for opinions–behave yourselves
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
I used the term because that’s what they call themselves. I’m not attached to the word “liberal,” though, when it comes to Catholicism. Most political “liberals” are pretty much in the same boat as dissenting Catholics on a number of issues, so the terms get jumbled up. In order to appease you I will use your terminology.
“Dissenters do not like Latin.”
And as far as angry spirals go, hmmm.
J
Jo_Benedict
Guest
Note:
Please be sure to keep this thread on-topic. Thanks.
Please be sure to keep this thread on-topic. Thanks.
S
Spiller
Guest
That’s just the point. “Pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-women priest, etc” Catholics are DISSENTING Catholics. To suggest they are universally “liberal” is simply ignorant. That ignorance is what turns a great many people off.The issues being brought up in this thread would qualify [OK dissenting then]~not so much the Latin vs. NO Mass but rather the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-women priest, etc sorts of issues; things that the CCC speak clearly about but some Catholic folks fight against.
BTW this thread wasn’t meant to turn into some kind of argument http://bestsmileys.com/argue/2.gif ~just looking for opinions–behave yourselves
Last Sunday someone at my eastern parish wanted to talk about the notion of “female priests.” I was game. His first words “those liberal Catholics!” caused me put a finger to my lips as I walked away from the man. It’s almost as if he had ink-stamped “I’m Ignorant” on his forehead with those comments.
Had he started with “those dissenting Catholics!” that would have been just fine and I would have engaged him in discourse.
S
Spiller
Guest
That’s just not true. Not even close.
I am VERY liberal in many ways – particularly social justice. On the other hand I am quite conservative on other matters such as the liturgy. What you suggest is wrong and does nothing but turn others off.
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
I think it is necessary to define our terms. What is liberal and what is conservative?
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t know how to tell you this but many in the world don’t think too much of English. Can’t say I blame them; English is not the easiest to learn, yet we try to push it everywhere we go.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
What is a liberal in your opinion?
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
Actually…I am a convert…and I converted for that nostalgic, traditional Catholicism found in Pre-Conciliar Latin Masses…modernism is a scourge
You could equally substitute “convert” for “liberal” in your quote.
How many of today’s converts would have been turned away if everything was still in Latin?
Further, your statement “Latin is a surefire Liberal-repellant” reeks of arrogance and elitism. You see Latin as a “tool” to “repel” those who don’t abide all of your personal beliefs?
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
E
ethelzguy
Guest
You’re overlooking all the priests that were priests prior to the NO Mass. There were plenty of them. Perhaps you are too young to remember.
A
Augustine
Guest
As a foreigner, I disagree. English is a very simple and unsophisticated language, with very few declinations. The orthography is awkward, but the grammar is extremely simple.
O
otjm
Guest
What we have, as usual, is a failure to define our terms; the result is that we have an on-going stream of comments, but too often no communication.
What or who is a liberal?
If one is ultra-orthodox, then a liberal is anyone to the left of them, including those who are orthodox.
Too often the term “liberal” means more “someone I don’t like” or “someone who takes a position I don’t like”, than it does anything else, including what may or may not fall within the definition of “orthodox”.
One of the largest problems in the Church today is that we have about two generations who have been poorly formed catchetical-wise, in the faith, and we are now starting on our third generation. All too often, those who were poorly or not at all formed in their faith are painted as liberals, when in fact they are simply sitting in the pews following along with what little they have been taught - formally, or simply by osmosis.
This labeling of “all of them” is first and foremost unfair because there is a very subtle implication that all those “liberals” were taught the truth and have rejected it. The fact is, they weren’t taught much of anything.
Labeling also has the effect of separating people into camps, and people in camps by and large don’t have much opportunity to explore and change; the very fact that they are in a camp tends to seal their “identity”.
And then there is the issue of people who simply do not like changes that have been made when they have been authorized by the Church; this results in those who are orthodox - following what the Church allows - being labeled as “liberal” when in fact they should be labeled “orthodox”. The argument ensues that the the changes were brought about by the “liberals” and therefore the orthodox position is somehow tainted - it is not really “orthodox”; i.e. orthodox becomes what I say it is, not what the Church says it is.
The net result is that most of the time, any “discussion” of issues liberal simply becomes a spleen venting.
What or who is a liberal?
If one is ultra-orthodox, then a liberal is anyone to the left of them, including those who are orthodox.
Too often the term “liberal” means more “someone I don’t like” or “someone who takes a position I don’t like”, than it does anything else, including what may or may not fall within the definition of “orthodox”.
One of the largest problems in the Church today is that we have about two generations who have been poorly formed catchetical-wise, in the faith, and we are now starting on our third generation. All too often, those who were poorly or not at all formed in their faith are painted as liberals, when in fact they are simply sitting in the pews following along with what little they have been taught - formally, or simply by osmosis.
This labeling of “all of them” is first and foremost unfair because there is a very subtle implication that all those “liberals” were taught the truth and have rejected it. The fact is, they weren’t taught much of anything.
Labeling also has the effect of separating people into camps, and people in camps by and large don’t have much opportunity to explore and change; the very fact that they are in a camp tends to seal their “identity”.
And then there is the issue of people who simply do not like changes that have been made when they have been authorized by the Church; this results in those who are orthodox - following what the Church allows - being labeled as “liberal” when in fact they should be labeled “orthodox”. The argument ensues that the the changes were brought about by the “liberals” and therefore the orthodox position is somehow tainted - it is not really “orthodox”; i.e. orthodox becomes what I say it is, not what the Church says it is.
The net result is that most of the time, any “discussion” of issues liberal simply becomes a spleen venting.
D
Della
Guest
Poor Mr Jim had, I’m sure, no idea what a hornet’s nest he’d disturbed by referring to heterodox beliefs and practices that have seeped into many a diocese and parish within the Catholic Church with the word “liberal”. 
All he wanted to know, folks, is if he can become a Catholic when so much of the Church seems to have bowed to the heresy of modernism. The answer, as some of us have endeavored to give him amid all the haggling over terms (which is a another topic for another thread) is that yes, he can become Catholic in good faith because the Church stands no matter what some of its members embrace, even if the vast majority goes wrong, as in the case of the Arian heresy centuries ago.
If the Church weathered that, and the rise of Protestantism and all the other isms that have arisen over the last millennium, it can surely withstand modernism, secularism and every other ism man and the powers of hell can devise over the next millennium and beyond.
All he wanted to know, folks, is if he can become a Catholic when so much of the Church seems to have bowed to the heresy of modernism. The answer, as some of us have endeavored to give him amid all the haggling over terms (which is a another topic for another thread) is that yes, he can become Catholic in good faith because the Church stands no matter what some of its members embrace, even if the vast majority goes wrong, as in the case of the Arian heresy centuries ago.
If the Church weathered that, and the rise of Protestantism and all the other isms that have arisen over the last millennium, it can surely withstand modernism, secularism and every other ism man and the powers of hell can devise over the next millennium and beyond.
- Status