April 4, 2005 at 5:27 pm #1930
Why is it that some Priests are really wanting some more Liberal happenings, such as, women becoming priests, priests being able to marry, contraception? Is the Anglican religion not a liberal type of Catholicism? And if so why would they not become anglican priests and settle there rather than become Catholic priests and try to change things?April 4, 2005 at 10:23 pm #2397
This is an great question. I don’t know the answer to it. I wonder about it sometimes. I am very much a rule follower, if you will. You know what I mean, “Well the Church says this or that so therefore this or that is how I feel or what I do”. Believe me, there are a lot of people in the Church that want what these Liberal Priests want. My best guess is that they want their cake and eat it too. I hope no one takes that offensively. I am not trying to be rude. I would like to understand the mentality of “taking a little of this, a little of that and leaving the rest on the table”. I hope someone else has more thoughts or answers. EricaApril 5, 2005 at 1:09 pm #2398
I am also a VERY Conservative Catholic. My DH used to joke that my home parish completely ignored Vatican II….which to a certain extent is true. Up into the 90’s, we all still kneeled for Communion, and MOST of the congregation refused to take Communion in their hands. I remember a nun at our school teaching us how to take Communion in our hands (in the late 70’s/early 80’s, I believe) , and adding, “I’m not sure WHY you would feel worthy to have your hands touch our Lord, but they said I was supposed to show you how to take communion this way!” 😕
Anyways, I don’t think it’s all that bad a thing to be a Conservative as far as Faith is concerned. I heard a (Conservative) radio commentator the other day who put it very well (in spite of him not being a Catholic.) He said that the Catholic church has maintained consistency of its beliefs for over two thousand years. He said, “That’s more than you can say about most things in this world.” Isn’t it GOOD to have consistency in what you say you believe? I think it makes you REALLY think about things before you say you believe them (if you know that they are not likely to change.)
I am personally praying that the Holy Spirit guides our Cardinals to select a Pope who will continue this consistency of belief. I have heard criticism that our Holy Father drove people away by being unwavering on some issues. I don’t believe this to be true. I don’t think those people were ever truly “here” to begin with (IYKWIM?)
Also, hoping not to offend, but I am very much against “ala carte Catholicism.”August 3, 2006 at 5:02 am #2399
Well, what is an angelican? Is that a religion?
I feel like I have a god given right to love and adore christ in “my” catholic church. But, no offense taken, you would call me a cafeteria catholic.
But—in my mind, I am die hard catholic. go figure.
Maybe if I had a logical and lengthy study session about the hot topics, I might have a better understanding.August 4, 2006 at 2:28 am #2400
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109fea5.asp This article pretty much explains the Anglican church. I didn’t read through the whole thing, but the site it came from is a Catholic one (and I think a good one) so it should help.
StacieAugust 17, 2006 at 2:08 pm #2401
I had to chuckle at the topic b/c some in my parish refer to our pastor as being “liberal”, but I tell ya, they would die if they heard what SOME priests in other parishes are up to!
Granted, I’m still doing my reading and catching up on all the things I should have learned years ago, but the impression that I have gotten from reading the Vatican II documents and analyses is that while the Council allowed for more “mainstream” or “liberal” liturgical practices, it did not prohibit any of the traditional practices. So you can still kneel before receiving Communion if you wish. And if you do not want to receive Communion in your hand, you don’t have to. Any priest that requires that is not following the dictates of Vatican II that allow for that. I think that is where alot of misunderstanding about Vatican II has come about…the introduction of newer practices was not intended to supercede the traditional practices, but to add to them. Just like with Latin Mass…it’s not prohibited to have Latin Mass and if you want a Latin Mass at your Church, you should petition your diocese.
I guess this is where the “liberal priests” thing comes into play. Because these so-called priests (and I say so-called b/c if they aren’t adhering to the Church’s teachings, how can they be considered real priests?) do see Vatican II as superceding the traditional practices and try to force the more liberal/mainstream interpretation on their congregants. I don’t blame people for getting upset!
Nancy, bookmark http://www.ewtn.com and http://www.catholic.com , both EXCELLENT resources for figuring out what the Church really teaches and why. I also recommend Christopher West’s explanation of Pope JP II’s Theology of the Body (through his varied seminars –http://www.christopherwest.com) for a full explanation of the Church’s teachings regarding “feminism”, sexuality and marriage. It will all make sense to you!August 22, 2006 at 9:49 pm #2402
BTW, the Anglican Church is known as the Episcopal Church in America.
It is a shame about so many of these “liberal” priests who are not loyal to the Magisterium. I’ve thought about this a lot too because I don’t understand why they stay priests. Then I really thought about it and realized it must be because of the truly permanent mark of the Holy Orders received by the priest. That was the (unfortunately) ONLY positive thing I could think of why some of these priests stay in the Catholic Church.
I guess there is always hope they will come back. Too bad so many of them do/say things because they THINK that’s what their congregation wants to hear when in reality so very many of us only want THE TRUTH!!
I could rant on this all day… thank goodness for my crying baby to stop me!!! hee hee
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.