That is definitely true. But he is a priest and must accept transfer to another parish when his bishop sees that it serves the Church better that way. Lucky for the priest that the parishioners at St Sabina fought in his behalf to the extent they did.
Well, sure. But the logic doesn’t follow concerning the Mass. It’s an answer in search of a problem. How many Mass attendees are packing in the first place? I run a greater risk of being hand-shaked to death at the sign of peace than being shot in Church.
Banning guns on Church property is a symbolic gesture.
That makes sense. Symbolism has a value if helps solve the problem in question. But the symbol buys into the misconception that restricting the availability of guns to law abiding citizens means fewer deaths from gun violence. That is just false.
Seriously, when put into the context of the genocidal abortion epidemic taking place all around, this issue is just kinda silly- in this context. (The issue of gun violence in itself is a serious issue obviously.)
Yep, spot on. Before Pope Francis, Catholics never fed the hungry, welcomed the immigrant, cared for the sick, taught the children. Nope, just wasn’t on the agenda.:rolleyes: Thank goodness now FINALLY we will focus on the downtrodden!!:rolleyes:
I was watching a part of his inauguration mass and did anybody else notice that both of the servers were female? One priest was very sure that was a calculated progrressvie gesture on his part.
There had been female servers at the Cathedral before. That would be the least of my worries.
If somebody dies from gun violence at a Church or church owned building, then couldn’t they be successfully sued for wrongful death because of the prohibition of concealed guns?
456clem-- “But the logic doesn’t follow concerning the Mass. It’s an answer in search of a problem. How many Mass attendees are packing in the first place? I run a greater risk of being hand-shaked to death at the sign of peace than being shot in Church.”
saintjohnxxiii-- “If somebody dies from gun violence at a Church or church owned building, then couldn’t they be successfully sued for wrongful death because of the prohibition of concealed guns?”
No, absent something really egregious on the part of the pastor, because the law permits building owners/operators the right to ban guns on their property, thereby effectively shielding them from liability.
Greetings…I find Bishop Cupich most worthy of this office, and a fine man that will lead the Church in a very prayerfull and interactive way. He is here for all the people of the Archdiocese of Chicago…not just a few. Sending love and light!
Female serves have been in the archdiocese of Chicago since the late 60’s.
Like others said, that’s the least of my concerns with Cupich.
A female acolyte isn’t going to block you from entering the Pearly Gates.
I am worried Cupich is too soft for the archdiocese. I could be wrong, but he seems to not have done much homework on us or had much exposure to Chicago’s issues.
This seems to be an odd standard. Two homilies and you can tell the man doesn’t care about those things?
Pastor at my parish hasn’t spoken on those subjects in the past two homilies I’ve heard either. Because there’s lots of stuff to talk about and those subjects probably didn’t fit the readings o’ the day.
And does a priest have to talk about those subjects in EVERY homily? Even Pope Francis said early in his papal career that it’s ok to preach about other things. Makes us RCs look as though we’re obsessive-compulsive over such items.
There’s two “conservative” parishes by my house. One has lots of homilies about the decay of society and gay marraige. The other has homilies about sin, Heaven, hell and temptation. I go to the latter.
Why would this be a problem at all??
Progressive Catholicism has been, is now, and always will be a “problem.” It scares people.
Just during the last 50 years, progressivism has morphed into horrible Catholic liturgy (only recently starting to be corrected), architecture, music, education, art, theology, scripture interpretation, ignoring cannon law, and a few things I don’t have to mention.
And for what? What good has come from progressivism to compensate Catholics in the pews for all the pain from seeing our beloved Church suffer from it? Some parishes were so bad I had to instruct my kids myself. What good has the Church Herself derived? Can there be any doubt that, today, only perhaps 25% of U S Catholics are still orthodox?
Now, if female alter servers were necessary in some case, it wouldn’t be “progressive”; it would be common sense. As it is, however, as far as I know, the Vatican’s recommendation (and just a recommendation) is still to retain as far as possible the tradition of having only male servers. That lessens the opportunity for trouble makers to argue that the Church should allow female priests as well, and lessens the complaints that the Church is no longer the same because it just will not stop changing. So, “one church is as good as another, right? Might as well join one which allows contraception, abortion and remarriage.”
Archbishop Cupich will have far more difficult problems.
That was a pretty big leap. From having female altar servers (which is allowed, and has happened at papal Masses) to acceptance of abortion?
Also, the “this” in my original comment did not assume a “calculated progressive gesture;” I don’t see the choice of altar servers as having that much weight.
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.
The Church in those times was being strangled and dominated by discrimination and inordinate judgement of peoples worthiness. The Church today also has areas of weakness but that is the lot of the human Church throughout time. As the CCC1428 says… "Christ’s call to conversion continues to resound in the lives of Christians. This second conversion is an uninterrupted task for the whole Church who, “clasping sinners to her bosom, [is] at once holy and always in need of purification, [and] follows constantly the path of penance and renewal.”… means it is unrealistic to pine for the past through rose coloured glasses whilst dismissing the blossoming of the Body of Christ that has occurred in the last 60 or so years with the wisdom of Vatican II.
Of course acceptance of female alter servers does not lead Catholics to also accept abortion; progressivism, however, seems to.
You say, “I don’t see the choice of altar servers as having that much weight.” You seem to be saying that the choice of all female alter servers, at the inaugural Mass of an Archbishop who is said to be proudly progressive and who was being watched closely to see what tone he would set, is not a calculated indication of his progressivism. If that is what you mean, I will have to agree with the priest.
And could you please refer me to your source for papal Masses where a Pope wanted only female alter servers? The subtopic here, after all, is Archbishop Cupich’s choice to do just that at his inaugural Mass. I would agree with you if you mean that female alter servers, per se, is not a weighty issue here.
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?
Sadly, labels get used to define “anyone different from me”, without bringing much in the way of true intellectual discussion.
As to 25% being orthodox - well, that may depend on how you define “orthodox”. According to CARA, approximately 25% (give or take a few points) of Catholics attend Mass on a weekly basis. And out of those attending Mass on Sundays each week, these threads are replete with comments about “progressive”, or “liberal” or occasionally “unorthodox” parishes; and one should likely not presume that in a parish which is following the GIRM, that none attending are “progressive”.
At the very bottom, however, is the tendency for people who consider themselves “traditional” - with or without a capital “T”, to consider anyone who does not share their view to be therefore “liberals” when in fact, the majority are moderates, trying their best to follow the Church and get to Heaven, and mostly disengaged from the issues which are of concern either to “liberals” or “traditionals” or both.
I tis not for no reason that Cardinal George, in a very recent interview as Archbishop Cupich was taking over, eschewed labels, particularly “conservative”. He had several rather pointed things to say about the matter.
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.