E
Edmundus1581
Guest
I think you clarify that issue very well!
- Status
S
santodomingo
Guest
Interesting thread!
I differ with whoever said that the choice between TLM and NO Mass is merely a question of taste. I certainly understand why most catholics go to NO Mass, they´ve hardly had much choice for the past 40 years!! I don´t think anyone is a BAD catholic for attending the new Mass, but I DO think that the Tridentine Mass is objectively superior. As someone else has mentioned in this thread, to be a good catholic you have to think! If you do some research about the genesis of the NO Mass in comparison with the TLM, you´ll understand why I say this.
As to whether you´re a liberal if you prefer the New Mass, I think that can only be true if, knowing enough about the issue, you still persist in denying what is superior. A liberal, when he sees something genuinely holy reacts in distaste, because it offends his sense of pride. All liberalism is at heart nothing but pride, man who wishes he were God. Liberals worship themselves, and therefore hate true worship agreeable to God.
The Old Mass is centred exclusively on God, whereas the New Mass has man at its centre. This is why the liberals love the New Mass and hate the Old.
I differ with whoever said that the choice between TLM and NO Mass is merely a question of taste. I certainly understand why most catholics go to NO Mass, they´ve hardly had much choice for the past 40 years!! I don´t think anyone is a BAD catholic for attending the new Mass, but I DO think that the Tridentine Mass is objectively superior. As someone else has mentioned in this thread, to be a good catholic you have to think! If you do some research about the genesis of the NO Mass in comparison with the TLM, you´ll understand why I say this.
As to whether you´re a liberal if you prefer the New Mass, I think that can only be true if, knowing enough about the issue, you still persist in denying what is superior. A liberal, when he sees something genuinely holy reacts in distaste, because it offends his sense of pride. All liberalism is at heart nothing but pride, man who wishes he were God. Liberals worship themselves, and therefore hate true worship agreeable to God.
The Old Mass is centred exclusively on God, whereas the New Mass has man at its centre. This is why the liberals love the New Mass and hate the Old.
M
ManOnFire
Guest
And who picks and chooses based on what the unelected pop culture media says. WHen the unelected pop culture media declares that something is “not correct,” but the Church says it is correct, and we choose to follow pop culture, then we have begun to worship a false god who, it we open our minds to consider it, is unelected.
L
Layman
Guest
I think the problem is the argument:
"The Church allows it, therefore its is good i.e. it should be done".
Like using 4 EMHCs with a congregation of 60.
Like using altar girls, so then boys don’t want to serve.
Like singing folksy, poppy, simple hymns, so then people can’t/don’t want to stretch to chant.
Things like this are allowed, but are they good for the Church? Vat. II has been used to insert people’s personal preferences into our worship. It reminds me of what the music industry does: water it down and sugar it up = hit record. Except we deal in Truth rather than sentiment.
**I think top of the current wish-list for liberal Catholics would be married priests. Why? Because of the delightful novelty. ** You would also be bringing the office down a peg: “He’s married, just like me!” This would continue the de-mystification process, started, ooooh, when the Bible began to be read like a historical document.
Except it’s not clever intellectual ideas that bring the crowds: it’s genuine holiness or false mysticism e.g. saint’s relics, true or false revelations, a priest or religious who can truly heal or bless. A priest who has a whiff of Heaven about him.
"The Church allows it, therefore its is good i.e. it should be done".
Like using 4 EMHCs with a congregation of 60.
Like using altar girls, so then boys don’t want to serve.
Like singing folksy, poppy, simple hymns, so then people can’t/don’t want to stretch to chant.
Things like this are allowed, but are they good for the Church? Vat. II has been used to insert people’s personal preferences into our worship. It reminds me of what the music industry does: water it down and sugar it up = hit record. Except we deal in Truth rather than sentiment.
**I think top of the current wish-list for liberal Catholics would be married priests. Why? Because of the delightful novelty. ** You would also be bringing the office down a peg: “He’s married, just like me!” This would continue the de-mystification process, started, ooooh, when the Bible began to be read like a historical document.
Except it’s not clever intellectual ideas that bring the crowds: it’s genuine holiness or false mysticism e.g. saint’s relics, true or false revelations, a priest or religious who can truly heal or bless. A priest who has a whiff of Heaven about him.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
I see what you are trying to say except I think fighting against what the Church allows is different then fighting against what the Church teaches. IMHO
So…if the Church allows it…and you don’t have a problem with it…does that make you liberal?
vs. fighting against what the Church teaches or doesn’t allow?
I myself have no problem with the three that you listed above. But I would never want your top wish list for a liberal Catholic.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
When I saw this thread I thought - oh, no, here comes a flood of liberal bashing, where “liberal” is used to denote whatever one’s bet-noir “progressive” cause is.
I am very glad to see that my prediction was wrong! We seem to have made some progress, and to understand that obedience, indeed sanctity, is possible within the ordinances and teachings of the Magisterium, without needing to impose our personal preferences as essentials.
It disturbs me to see “liberal” still being used to describe heterodox positions from the left, as the term is much too open to abuse, but it isn’t being abused as much as it has been in the past.
The term itself is morally neutral, and is not used in any Church documents (AFAIK).
I am very glad to see that my prediction was wrong! We seem to have made some progress, and to understand that obedience, indeed sanctity, is possible within the ordinances and teachings of the Magisterium, without needing to impose our personal preferences as essentials.
It disturbs me to see “liberal” still being used to describe heterodox positions from the left, as the term is much too open to abuse, but it isn’t being abused as much as it has been in the past.
The term itself is morally neutral, and is not used in any Church documents (AFAIK).
R
Restituo
Guest
Excommunicated.
-Restituo
-Restituo
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
Being “liberal” is not an offence in canon law.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
According to Fr. Sarda in 1886 “By definition, Liberalism is the mistaken notion that “One religion is as good as another.”” How that could relevant to this discussion is beyond me. Here we are on page 4 of the topic titled “What do you consider a liberal Catholic to be”, and not one person has given that definition.
J
jmj603
Guest
Many people have given the definition. You just don’t like it.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
Where?
J
jmj603
Guest
For example, #39.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
#39
Next time (if you try again), please include the link, or the quotation, in your post.
And, this is just proving my aversion to the term “liberal”. We have people here saying that “liberals” are not real Catholics, that they are excommunicated (literally and formally), yet there is no concensus on what a liberal is. As Hamlet might say - it’s a word more honoured in the breach than the observance.
R
Restituo
Guest
No, but the many vices attached to liberalism are. Don’t play with fire.
-Restituo
J
jmj603
Guest
I guess after your line of argument is annihilated, you need something to make you feel superior.
Nobody has disagreed with Alex’s comment. There is consensus that a liberal picks and chooses what he believes.
But even if there wasn’t, assuming “consensus” is the basis of truth is pretty shoddy thinking.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
It was YOUR argument that was annihilated. You said that many posts here define liberalism as *By definition, Liberalism is the mistaken notion that “One religion is as good as another.”I guess after your line of argument is annihilated, you need something to make you feel superior.
*
I asked you which ones, and you cited post #39. So, I found post #39 and quoted it, and it doesn’t use those words, or anything like them. I you think that it is somehow giving that definition, then please explain.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
Attached by who? Not by the Church.
T
tskrobacz
Guest
There is no such thing as a liberal or conservative catholic…we are all catholics. Some Catholics “obey without thinking” and do strictly what the church recommends…others explore their faith in earnest and see the wisdom of the mystics, saints and other great spiritual traditions to fully appreciate the God of all creation, all peoples. The later are frequently labeled “liberal” however it is simply a different way of seeing. There is no single “right” way to be Catholic - to suggest there is is dualistic and counter to the teachings of Jesus.
J
jmj603
Guest
Here is Fr. Sarda (let’s actually quote him now, shall we?): “It is a current fallacy, laid down as a fundamental truth that one religion is as good as another, that everyone has the right to believe what be pleases, that differences in creed are after all but differences in forms of expression, that everyone may select his own creed or sect according to his taste”
And here is Alex: “A liberal Catholic is a person who sees Catholicism very much like a cafeteria where everything that is on the mandatory menu can be refused if it isn’t to his or her personal taste.”
- Status