USCCB Liturgical Adaptations & Exceptions (Who Else Is Sick & Tired of Them?)

[netmilsmom]

Catholic2003:

Sorry. As I stated, I agree with pnewton that respectful criticism is quite different than dissent.

However, there does seem to be a “holier-than-thou” attitude around here on the part of those who choose to criticize the liberal element of the Church, over those who choose to criticize the conservative element of the Church. To see this, count the number of times the term “feminazi” has been used in this forum against those on the left, versus, for example, the number of times the term “liturgical nazi” has been used against those on the right.

Those that criticize the “liberal” elements of the church are given the “More Christian than you” attitude. See the Spirit of V2 thread where the conservatives were told that they need the liberals to show them how to be like Christ.
Sorry friend, it’s a two way street here and the only difference is that the liberal side is coated with sugar.

Take a BM and coat it with sugar, it still isn’t a Tootsie Roll.
Insults are only insults when thrown from the other side.

 

[fix]

By the late 1980s, some prominent voices in American Catholic life began to wonder if the conference needed to be reigned in. Criticisms that had been heard from time to time began to become more frequent and pointed. The conference, it was said, was “staff-driven”; the bishops were mere spectators; the biannual meetings were more like political conventions than pastoral meetings; a “clique” of bishops dominated to the exclusion of others; theological leftists inevitably prevailed on everything from public policy to liturgy; the conference’s support staff leaned even further to the left; vast sums of money seemed to disappear into an ever-expanding bureaucracy. Several bishops and Catholic leaders rose to defend the conference against these and other charges, but over time the criticism had its effect…
The bishops appear to be moving toward a consensus that the conference can “clean its own house” and lead the reform and renewal necessitated by the current crisis in American Catholic life. In the end, financial constraints might contribute more than anything else to limiting the power and influence of the USCCB…firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0504/articles/dolan.html

 

[pnewton]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Take a BM and coat it with sugar, it still isn’t a Tootsie Roll.
Insults are only insults when thrown from the other side.

Ewww! That imagery is going to stick for a while.

 

[Catholic2003]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Sorry friend, it’s a two way street here

Exactly. Respectful criticism is acceptable, and dissent is not, whichever side of the street you are on.
netmil(name removed by moderator):

and the only difference is that the liberal side is coated with sugar.

Or, to use a less gross analogy, that being a cafeteria Catholic at the salad bar is somehow superior to being a cafeteria Catholic in the dessert line.

 

[buffalo]

Catholic2003:

Or, to use a less gross analogy, that being a cafeteria Catholic at the salad bar is somehow superior to being a cafeteria Catholic in the dessert line.

Not true at all. There is a huge difference in trying to live your faith as taught and failing, and turning your back on teachings you don’t like.

Ask yourself this - which one would Jesus smile upon?

 

[Catholic2003]

buffalo:

Ask yourself this - which one would Jesus smile upon?

I don’t think Jesus would smile on either. Turning your back on Church teachings is always wrong, whether those teachings come from liberal U.S. bishops or conservative Vatican cardinals.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

I don’t think Jesus would smile on either. Turning your back on Church teachings is always wrong, whether those teachings come from liberal U.S. bishops or conservative Vatican cardinals.

If the teaching is authentic and legitimate it will be followed by orthodox Catholics. If there is an agenda that is counter to the mind of the Church, then some will speak up and ask the proper authorities to hear their concerns. That is no cafeteria.

 

[buffalo]

Catholic2003:

I don’t think Jesus would smile on either. Turning your back on Church teachings is always wrong, whether those teachings come from liberal U.S. bishops or conservative Vatican cardinals.

Huh? What about Jesus’ teachings?

 

[netmilsmom]

Catholic2003:

That’s because the conservatives seem to think that their **** doesn’t stink, so it doesn’t need sugar-coating.

ok
Take an explaination and add an insult. That’s going to win hearts and minds.

 

[Catholic2003]

buffalo:

Huh? What about Jesus’ teachings?

I don’t understand. What about Jesus’ teachings?

 

[fix]

The OP did not say anything about disobeying any legitimate authority.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

If the teaching is authentic and legitimate it will be followed by orthodox Catholics. If there is an agenda that is counter to the mind of the Church, then some will speak up and ask the proper authorities to hear their concerns. That is no cafeteria.

We are in agreement! What you describe here is indeed no cafeteria.

 

[Catholic2003]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

ok
Take an explaination and add an insult. That’s going to win hearts and minds.

You’re the one who came up with the BM analogy, not me.

I don’t want to single out individual posters in other threads, so let me state my general impression: If a liberal on these forums were to call a conservative a “liturgical nazi”, and then be told that terms containing the word “nazi” were highly offensive, my impression is that the liberal would apologize and back off. However, I remember specific cases where a conservative was told that the term “feminazi” was highly offensive, and instead of apologizing, the conservative instead launched into a defense of his use of the term on the grounds that it is okay to be offensive when you are right and your opponent is wrong.

I’m sorry, but the conservative’s “feminazi” stinks just as bad as the liberal’s “liturgical nazi”.

 

[buffalo]

Catholic2003:

I don’t understand. What about Jesus’ teachings?

Is the Magisterium faithful to His teachings or not?

I

 

[Catholic2003]

buffalo:

Is the Magisterium faithful to His teachings or not?

Protestants think it is not. Thus, they claim to be faithful to Jesus while being disobedient to His Church. However, this is not being faithful at all.

Similarly, those who proclaim that they are “faithful to Rome” while thumbing their noses at the U.S. bishops are likewise not really being faithful at all.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Protestants think it is not. Thus, they claim to be faithful to Jesus while being disobedient to His Church. However, this is not being faithful at all.

Similarly, those who proclaim that they are “faithful to Rome” while thumbing their noses at the U.S. bishops are likewise not really being faithful at all.

Can you give an example of thumbing one’s nose and do you mean the USCCB, or one’s own bishop?

 

[netmilsmom]

Catholic2003:

You’re the one who came up with the BM analogy, not me.

Right, and I did not personally insult liberals but rather what how they insulted.

I don’t want to single out individual posters in other threads, so let me state my general impression: If a liberal on these forums were to call a conservative a “liturgical nazi”, and then be told that terms containing the word “nazi” were highly offensive, my impression is that the liberal would apologize and back off. However, I remember specific cases where a conservative was told that the term “feminazi” was highly offensive, and instead of apologizing, the conservative instead launched into a defense of his use of the term on the grounds that it is okay to be offensive when you are right and your opponent is wrong.

I’m sorry, but the conservative’s “feminazi” stinks just as bad as the liberal’s “liturgical nazi”.

We could fill the thread with examples. Insults are only insults when they come from the other side.
Well, that’s why I said that it goes both ways.
In the particular thread that I stated, the liberals had no clue that they were being insulting and never backed down from the original statement when it was pointed out. THEN continued to state that they were taking the high road.
Some of us on both sides get on a roll and feed off each other. I am strong in my opinions as are you. Sometimes that is what discussion forums are all about. We get all kinds. But geez, neither side is on the moral high ground and no matter how sweetly one says it, it’s still an insult.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

Can you give an example of thumbing one’s nose and do you mean the USCCB, or one’s own bishop?

I think she is addressing a common (not predominant) criticism of the USCCB of being too liberal or too conservative based on the posters disposition on a particular issue. While I consider myself very conservative and orthodox, I’m bothered when even those I agree with on the issue use a tone and attitude that appear disrespectful of the Office of Bishop and their legitimate teaching authority. IMHO, to be good faithful Catholics we have to begin with an attitude of reverence and respect for our Bishop regardless if we agree or not with them. Then, when we disagree, we need to patiently take it to prayer to get guidance from the Holy Spirit to reconcile our view with the Bishop. If after an appopriate period of discernment, we are still unable to find agreement, we need to discern whether this is a matter of faith that we are required to accept with faith or whether using Prudence we are still free to disagree (while few and far between, there are such issues as in Pope JPII’s expression that he didn’t think the Iraq War was justified).

Unfortunately, too many American Catholics apply their legitimate soveriegnity as citizens to matters of faith and express their “views and opinions” using the same tone and independence they are legitimately able to use in politics.

 

[buffalo]

Catholic2003:

Similarly, those who proclaim that they are “faithful to Rome” while thumbing their noses at the U.S. bishops are likewise not really being faithful at all.

The truth of the faith comes from the communion of all the Bishops and the Pope. The Pope has the final say. If a particular group of Bishops is not in Communion with Rome, who are we to be faithful to?

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

I think she is addressing a common (not predominant) criticism of the USCCB of being too liberal or too conservative based on the posters disposition on a particular issue. While I consider myself very conservative and orthodox, I’m bothered when even those I agree with on the issue use a tone and attitude that appear disrespectful of the Office of Bishop and their legitimate teaching authority. IMHO, to be good faithful Catholics we have to begin with an attitude of reverence and respect for our Bishop regardless if we agree or not with them. Then, when we disagree, we need to patiently take it to prayer to get guidance from the Holy Spirit to reconcile our view with the Bishop. If after an appopriate period of discernment, we are still unable to find agreement, we need to discern whether this is a matter of faith that we are required to accept with faith or whether using Prudence we are still free to disagree (while few and far between, there are such issues as in Pope JPII’s expression that he didn’t think the Iraq War was justified).

Unfortunately, too many American Catholics apply their legitimate soveriegnity as citizens to matters of faith and express their “views and opinions” using the same tone and independence they are legitimately able to use in politics.

I agree, but is common knowledge that the USCCB does have a liberal slant. I even posted a link by Bishop Dolan that makes reference to this.

One of the issues here is that one can’t help but see there is a liberal bias among many of the bishops. That does not mean we are free to disobey legitimate authority or just instruction.

Perhaps it is the tone of criticism that offends you more than the truth of the criticism.