In Chicago, Pope Francis Agenda has a champion in Cupich

[BobCatholic]

Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation already, to what result?

Not anymore. The new FCCL law allows concealed carry. Now NJ is far more restrictive.

 

[KSU]

Not to make too fine a point of it, but the last two Popes were considered “progressives”, and IMHO neither of them damaged the Church.

And if we want to use labels, if progressive is one end of the spectrum, what is the other - regressive? .

If anyone thinks the last two Popes were “progressive”, it would be fruitless to debate the issue because there would be no agreement on the popular shorthand meaning of terms.

In the absence of agreement on terms, I agree with you on the danger of labels, and have said so on this Forum.

 

[KSU]

You are confusing progressives with secularists, agnostics and atheists. You are trying to talk about progressives in the Church (which I would take to be those who actually attend Mass on a weekly basis) and make a mental leap to those who can’t be bothered, don’t really care, or have simply abandoned any concept of Catholicism. Maybe there are a few weekly attendants At Mass who are pro abortion, but I sincerely doubt they amount to a significant number. Those who push for abortion are either those who are shacked up and get pregnant, or the relatives of those and one and all of the bunch see a child as some sort of mistake.
And that is not particularly a good description of faithful Mass goers.

No, my friend, I am not “confusing progressives with secularists, agnostics and atheists.” And your assumption of whom I referred to as progressive Catholics is 180 degrees off base. People who “don’t really care, or have simply abandoned any concept of Catholicism”, I would argue, are not even authentic Catholics, so how can they be progressive Catholics?

Since you asked, I consider almost all “progressive” Catholics, in the sense I have been following along with the terminology in this thread, to be people of faith who love Christ and try their best to follow Him. They are doctrinally orthodox, but have a non-traditional modus operandi, e.g., a new Archbishop preventing male alter servers the privilege of serving at his inaugural Mass in order to show solidarity with women.

Ultra-progressive Catholics have been known to go beyond the pale. If you were as old as I, you would have seen them: A priest telling his congregation, “Jesus said that if you don’t tithe, you will almost certainly go to hell”, or a Bishop who takes compassion for the poor so far that he lobbies for politicians who push abortion and who would label anti-homosexual “marriage” as hate speech, or a confessor who says, “Let conscience be your guide for the use of contraception”.

 

[SWolf]

Prior to the last half of the 20th century there were many very unChristian and inhumane proponents of severe exclusion from the life of the Church. Back then these types were regarded as legalists or fundamentalists although they are now more commonly known as ultra tradtionalists. As Pope Francis described their destructive attitude “hostile inflexibility” to be open to the Holy Spirit.

Do you have specific examples?

 

[otjm]

No, my friend, I am not “confusing progressives with secularists, agnostics and atheists.” And your assumption of whom I referred to as progressive Catholics is 180 degrees off base. People who “don’t really care, or have simply abandoned any concept of Catholicism”, I would argue, are not even authentic Catholics, so how can they be progressive Catholics?

Since you asked, I consider almost all “progressive” Catholics, in the sense I have been following along with the terminology in this thread, to be people of faith who love Christ and try their best to follow Him. They are doctrinally orthodox, but have a non-traditional modus operandi, e.g., a new Archbishop preventing male alter servers the privilege of serving at his inaugural Mass in order to show solidarity with women.

Ultra-progressive Catholics have been known to go beyond the pale. If you were as old as I, you would have seen them: A priest telling his congregation, “Jesus said that if you don’t tithe, you will almost certainly go to hell”, or a Bishop who takes compassion for the poor so far that he lobbies for politicians who push abortion and who would label anti-homosexual “marriage” as hate speech, or a confessor who says, “Let conscience be your guide for the use of contraception”.

If I misread your post I apologize. I tend to agree with Cardinal George that a) what is critical to the issue is whether or not someone is in line with the Magisterium, and b) within that, there is a greater range than many people presume (or accept). The Cardinal is very expressive in saying that he does not like labels, and I tend to agree with him.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
Prior to the last half of the 20th century there were many very unChristian and inhumane proponents of severe exclusion from the life of the Church. Back then these types were regarded as legalists or fundamentalists although they are now more commonly known as ultra tradtionalists. As Pope Francis described their destructive attitude “hostile inflexibility” to be open to the Holy Spirit.

I really don’t want to buy into that whole hermeneutic of rupture thing but my intention was to respond to a poster attacking the “horrible Catholic liturgy” we have today and female altar servers.

There are things I personally remember such as my mother chiding us children when we were being mean or selfish with “Don’t be a Jew!” and I remember believing that no Protestant would ever go to heaven. People were forced to convert to Catholicism to marry in the Church etc.

Things like the Anti Modernist Oath of 1910 had sowed seeds of judgement and condemnation that made people look to others who didn’t measure up to their own high standards as ‘heretics’. It discouraged healthy evangelisation and normal healthy philosophical discussion as being opposed to sacred Tradition.

In the lead up to Vatican II there was some toxic attitudes already poisoning the Church from within. That was the point of the council.

There are of course many wonderful things about the ‘golden age’ of Catholicism but there was also a lot wrong that led away from the unity that Christ came to bring. Those things are being redressed by the Holy Popes of the last 60 years.

 

[SWolf]

I really don’t want to buy into that whole hermeneutic of rupture thing but my intention was to respond to a poster attacking the “horrible Catholic liturgy” we have today and female altar servers.

There are things I personally remember such as my mother chiding us children when we were being mean or selfish with “Don’t be a Jew!” and I remember believing that no Protestant would ever go to heaven. People were forced to convert to Catholicism to marry in the Church etc.

Things like the Anti Modernist Oath of 1910 had sowed seeds of judgement and condemnation that made people look to others who didn’t measure up to their own high standards as ‘heretics’. It discouraged healthy evangelisation and normal healthy philosophical discussion as being opposed to sacred Tradition.

In the lead up to Vatican II there was some toxic attitudes already poisoning the Church from within. That was the point of the council.

There are of course many wonderful things about the ‘golden age’ of Catholicism but there was also a lot wrong that led away from the unity that Christ came to bring. Those things are being redressed by the Holy Popes of the last 60 years.

For the reprimands like “Don’t be a Jew” and all protestants go to Hell, I can agree. I’m not thinking even the religious in that time would condone such behavior. Now I hear “don’t be judgemental” and “don’t be a pharisee”. Same knee-jerk reactions, different context.

Modernism is still considered a Heresy by the Catholic Church, so I don’t see how the Oath would discourage evangelization or discussion. The Church actually flourished in the US during the decades preceding VII.

Read “The Church Confronts Modernity: Catholic Intellectuals and the Progressive Era” by Thomas Woods and see how fruitful Catholic Philosophical discussion was at that time.

As for Female Altar servers, if you look at the role of altar servers and possible apprentices for the priesthood, it doesn’t make a lick of sense.

As for getting mixed marriages in the Church, you still have to promise to raise your children Catholic. I wish people would take it more seriously, as parents of separate faiths brings a lot of confusion to children and tension to the household. Many people manage, but will attest how difficult it is.

 

[KSU]

I tend to agree with Cardinal George that a) what is critical to the issue is whether or not someone is in line with the Magisterium, and b) within that, there is a greater range than many people presume (or accept). The Cardinal is very expressive in saying that he does not like labels, and I tend to agree with him./QUOTE

Right on, my friend. Cardinal George, that good man, is an example of why the politically-rooted, left/right labels under discussion here are USUALLY not appropriate. He can be refreshingly “conservative” (i.e., orthodox/small t traditional/Burke-like) with respect to doctrine, while disappointingly “liberal” with respect to sorely-needed public discipline of scandal-causing ultra-progressive dissidents.

And, yes, the latter trait is far less important than the former; “whether or not someone is in line with the Magisterium” is the all-important factor.

And, no, to answer your earlier question, if “progressive” is at one end of the spectrum, “regressive” is not at the opposite end. At least not in the sense that that label has been used in this thread, because “progressive” sometimes means regressive. For example, Americanism, is today considered a “progressive” movement, but in effect is doctrinally regressive, viz:

QUOTE The movement propagated in the United States in the late nineteenth century which claimed that the Catholic Church should adjust its doctrines, especially in morality, to the culture of the people. Emphasizing the “active” virtues of social welfare and democratic equality, it underrated the “passive” virtues of humility and obedience to ecclesiastical authority. Americanism was condemned by Pope Leo XIII in an apostolic letter, Testem Benevolentiae (January 22, 1899), addressed to Cardinal Gibbons. (From Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.) END QUOTE

But, as you can see, if it is more or less clear that certain labels are explained first, or generally understood the same way by all concerned, I think labels are a very useful shorthand tool. E.G., the late Democratic Congressman, Fr. Robert Drinan, was never mistaken for a “conservative” or “traditional” or “right-leaning” Catholic, doctrinally or politically. With respect to that poor man, the labels “liberal”, “progressive” and “leftist” were perfectly understood and perfectly applicable. (I believe there is something in the water in Massachusetts and at Georgetown.)

In any case, otjm, thanks for your patience with my windy preachyness.

Edit: I don’t know why your above opening quote printed the way it did.

 

[Peebo]

So where does having female altar severs detract from what the Catholic mass is all about…receiving the body and blood of Jesus Christ as he commanded us. does it lessen our chances for our eternal salvation…does it alter the way we are expected to lead our lives faithful to the teachings of the church of Jesus Christ…can some one please point out where having female servers has been detrimental to the dogma of the Catholic Church as I came into the faith years well after vatican2 and now fear for my eternal soul because I have been mislead about female altar servers

 

[KSU]

I really don’t want to buy into that whole hermeneutic of rupture thing but my intention was to respond to a poster attacking the “horrible Catholic liturgy” we have today and female altar servers…

Please, my friend, don’t mischaracterize my posts and put words in my mouth, and please understand why I don’t respond to your posts.

Authentic Catholics finally moved Rome to throw out the initial, intentionally unfaithful and doctrinally deficient liturgy; and make-it-up-on-the-fly liturgy; and priests in clown suits surrounded by children at the alter (excuse me, I mean the" table of plenty") at Easter; and silver-haired, dancing-around-the-community table “Sisters” with flowing gowns and Mother Earth’s sheaf’s of wheat to translate the real Mass for us troglodyte Catholics. I’m sure that Sophia, the Mother Goddess, also appreciated their efforts to educate my family and me.

I won’t hazard a guess as to why you are offended that I used the term “horrible” for the above, initial, post VCII, “progressive Catholic” ICEL liturgy, but I thank God for JPII and BXVI who got rid of it and all the related nonsense.

 

[LongingSoul]

Please, my friend, don’t mischaracterize my posts and put words in my mouth, and please understand why I don’t respond to your posts.

Authentic Catholics finally moved Rome to throw out the initial, intentionally unfaithful and doctrinally deficient liturgy; and make-it-up-on-the-fly liturgy; and priests in clown suits surrounded by children at the alter (excuse me, I mean the" table of plenty") at Easter; and silver-haired, dancing-around-the-community table “Sisters” with flowing gowns and Mother Earth’s sheaf’s of wheat to translate the real Mass for us troglodyte Catholics. I’m sure that Sophia, the Mother Goddess, also appreciated their efforts to educate my family and me.

I won’t hazard a guess as to why you are offended that I used the term “horrible” for the above, initial, post VCII, “progressive Catholic” ICEL liturgy, but I thank God for JPII and BXVI who got rid of it and all the related nonsense.

I’ve been to many a Mass over my 52 years from your modern youth Mass to the solemn holiness of Mass at the Carmelite monestary. Never would I describe a single one in the way you do. They haven’t all appealed to me but not being a Church scholar I’m more than happy to leave any liturgical abuse issues to the experts of the diocese, none of which spew such vitriol about any mass as you have about the Eucharist. I dislike your approach immensely.

 

[otjm]

otjm;12545579:

I tend to agree with Cardinal George that a) what is critical to the issue is whether or not someone is in line with the Magisterium, and b) within that, there is a greater range than many people presume (or accept). The Cardinal is very expressive in saying that he does not like labels, and I tend to agree with him.

As to the quote - look at the close of the quote; you left off the closure parentheses. Once in a while I do that, or forget the /.

I would agree with you that labels are a shorthand tool - it is just that I wish we could get past shorthand, and perhaps discuss some issues more deeply.

And as to Cardinal George failing to publicly discipline, he has lots of company within the bishops. You, or I may not consider a prudential decision to not publicly keel haul someone to be correct; but for decades the bishops have been using prudential judgment in that area, and for decades Rome has seen fit to not chastise them for doing so. We can continue to carp about it, or we can step back and perhaps say to ourselves that there may be more to the issue than we comprehend.

There are any number of people who would like to see certain “professed Catholic” politicians brought up short. However, none of us have the privilege of dealing with the fallout that could come from it. It is easy to say the course that must be taken when one has no responsibility for the results.

None of this is an argument that I am trying to win. I don’t need to win it; I simply comment on what I observe. People do not agree with my observations, but the matter (of prudential judgment) continues on in spite of their position, and my comments are denied but not refuted. And so it goes.

 

[KSU]

I’ve been to many a Mass over my 52 years from your modern youth Mass to the solemn holiness of Mass at the Carmelite monestary. Never would I describe a single one in the way you do. They haven’t all appealed to me but not being a Church scholar I’m more than happy to leave any liturgical abuse issues to the experts of the diocese, none of which spew such vitriol about any mass as you have about the Eucharist. I dislike your approach immensely.

Then, please, friend, as at least one other poster has requested with respect to his posts, stop responding to mine. It adds nothing to this thread to keep putting words in my mouth; I never attacked female alter servers and I would never spew vitriol about the Eucharist.

In a sincere sense of fraternal correction, I suggest that you would profit by looking up the word calumny.

BTW, you are my friend. If our God would suffer and die for you, that’s good enough for me.

 

[KSU]

KSU;12546569:

As to the quote - look at the close of the quote; you left off the closure parentheses. Once in a while I do that, or forget the /.

I would agree with you that labels are a shorthand tool - it is just that I wish we could get past shorthand, and perhaps discuss some issues more deeply.

And as to Cardinal George failing to publicly discipline, he has lots of company within the bishops. You, or I may not consider a prudential decision to not publicly keel haul someone to be correct; but for decades the bishops have been using prudential judgment in that area, and for decades Rome has seen fit to not chastise them for doing so. We can continue to carp about it, or we can step back and perhaps say to ourselves that there may be more to the issue than we comprehend.

There are any number of people who would like to see certain “professed Catholic” politicians brought up short. However, none of us have the privilege of dealing with the fallout that could come from it. It is easy to say the course that must be taken when one has no responsibility for the results.

None of this is an argument that I am trying to win. I don’t need to win it; I simply comment on what I observe. People do not agree with my observations, but the matter (of prudential judgment) continues on in spite of their position, and my comments are denied but not refuted. And so it goes.

Thanks, otjm, for explaining the mystery re quotes.

Re Cardinal George, I hope you know I was not criticizing him; I was showing both sides of the man in an effort to support and agree with your position that it would be inappropriate to label him as either progressive or conservative. Most people are many faceted beings.

Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean I can’t be disappointed about his failure, after more than one private attempt at reconciliation, to finally publicly discipline repeated, un-repented, public actions that give grave nation-wide scandal to the Church. Moreover, I was not speaking about any discipline of “professed Catholic” politicians, as you incorrectly but understandably assumed. That topic could fill up an entire thread. I was speaking about the Cardinal and an infamous Chicago priest, and I wrote and told the Cardinal so. (I’m sure he was astounded by my impeccable theological argument. )

You say, “It is easy to say the course [discipline] that must be taken when one has no responsibility for the results.” True, but irrelevant.

Good debate, otjm.

 

[LongingSoul]

Then, please, friend, as at least one other poster has requested with respect to his posts, stop responding to mine. It adds nothing to this thread to keep putting words in my mouth; I never attacked female alter servers and I would never spew vitriol about the Eucharist.

In a sincere sense of fraternal correction, I suggest that you would profit by looking up the word calumny.

BTW, you are my friend. If our God would suffer and die for you, that’s good enough for me.

KSU, you have two options. Put me on your ignore list. I’ve done that once with great benefit here. Or report my ‘calumny’ to the admin and put my posts in the hands of an independent moderator.

You can’t just say that you can post whatever you like about the Church on a public forum and silence anyone who opposes your view. This is the free west.

 

[KSU]

otjm, I know you don’t like “labels”, but here is an article that I think illustrates why they somtimes are useful shorthand tools, while at the same time supporting your position (with which I agree) that labels can’t really define a person (including Archbishop Cupich):

foxnews.com/world/2014/12/06/solving-enigma-pope-francis/?intcmp=features

 

[on_the_hill]

Pope Francis has an agenda??

Yes. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

 

[on_the_hill]

In the absence of agreement on terms, I agree with you on the danger of labels, and have said so on this Forum.

Yet you labeled the past 50 years of Roman Catholic liturgy as “horrible.”

Please explain, because your characterization is somewhat offensive.

 

[on_the_hill]

if you look at the role of altar servers and possible apprentices for the priesthood,

I’ll repeat what I’ve posted in other threads: In my whole life, CAF is the ONLY place anyone ever linked boy altar servers with being prepared for the priesthood. I was an alter boy long before girls were permitted, and no priest, no parent, no teacher in my Catholic school, ever once mentioned that we were being “apprenticed” for the priesthood.

I now formally conclude that the concept of “apprenticeship” was conjured by Conservative/(big T) Traditional Catholics who are trying to hold on to the “good ol’ days,” that never existed in any real sense.

Therefore, based on the conclusion I now promulgate, this argument is henceforth null and void. Posters are no longer permitted to use it.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

 

[on_the_hill]

I never attacked female alter servers and I would never spew vitriol about the Eucharist.

As to the former, you did in a rather passive aggressive way. Sort of doing it as a first derivative. You implied that boy alter servers would have been more appropriate. If boy altar servers are more appropriate, then girl altar servers are inappropriate. Savvy?

As to the latter, you didn’t. But you *did *call the liturgy horrible.

Go, hit the shower, and get a good night’s sleep. You’ll feel better in the morning.