Topic: RC v. EO priests: who's more "liberal"?

[Papist]

Split off from http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37854.msg600224.html#msg600224

What??? There are liberal priests in Eastern Orthodox? I thought your parishes were all bastions of conservative traditionalism.

[Shanghaiski]

What??? There are liberal priests in Eastern Orthodox? I thought your parishes were all bastions of conservative traditionalism.

Of course there are liberal priests in the Orthodox Church. Whether there are any in heaven is another matter.

[Iconodule]

What??? There are liberal priests in Eastern Orthodox? I thought your parishes were all bastions of conservative traditionalism.

Let's keep things in perspective.

[Xenia1918]

What??? There are liberal priests in Eastern Orthodox? I thought your parishes were all bastions of conservative traditionalism.

Haha. 

Unless we're speaking of Traditional Roman Catholic priests, such as those in the SSPX or SSPV, I'd say its RC priests, hands down.

[primuspilus]

For you my dear friends, for your approval. The poster child of RC liberalism in America (NOT the poster child for RC's in America mind you)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pfleger

primuspilus

[Xenia1918]

For you my dear friends, for your approval. The poster child of RC liberalism in America (NOT the poster child for RC's in America mind you)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pfleger

primuspilus

GAG....why has he not been reprimanded? As if the removal of the Tridentine Latin Mass and all other Traditional Catholic sacraments was not reason enough for me to leave!

Is there an Orthodox equivalent of Pfleger, btw?

[primuspilus]

Anyone who calls Jeremiah Wright (a near-militant supporter of Black Liberation "Theology") a biblical scholar should be thwacked in the head.

primuspilus

[Wyatt]

What??? There are liberal priests in Eastern Orthodox? I thought your parishes were all bastions of conservative traditionalism.

LOL. I love it.

[username!]

Not sure if about this "liberal" thing versus "conservative," the whole A or B thing is so American media.  As if us "consumers" (in the UK you have subjects, in the USA you have consumers) are incapable of arguing for more than two simple points when the world is grey and not black and white.

Anyway, I like when the priest is liberal with the pouring of Slivovitch versus being conservative and only giving us one shot at the post-Pascha food bash.

[Schultz]

For you my dear friends, for your approval. The poster child of RC liberalism in America (NOT the poster child for RC's in America mind you)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pfleger

primuspilus

GAG....why has he not been reprimanded? As if the removal of the Tridentine Latin Mass and all other Traditional Catholic sacraments was not reason enough for me to leave!

Is there an Orthodox equivalent of Pfleger, btw?

He was.  He had his faculties suspended for about a month earlier this year.

[primuspilus]

Ernesto Obregon. But im not sure if he has a wiki. Basically, he got famous for saying anyone who opposes the muslim shrine at Ground Zero is a racist, etc.

primuspilus

[deusveritasest]

What??? There are liberal priests in Eastern Orthodox? I thought your parishes were all bastions of conservative traditionalism.

LOL. I love it.

You realize that the vast majority of the people here view these sorts of posts as incredibly childish and consequentially essentially pay you no heed?

[Xenia1918]

For you my dear friends, for your approval. The poster child of RC liberalism in America (NOT the poster child for RC's in America mind you)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pfleger

primuspilus

GAG....why has he not been reprimanded? As if the removal of the Tridentine Latin Mass and all other Traditional Catholic sacraments was not reason enough for me to leave!

Is there an Orthodox equivalent of Pfleger, btw?

He was.  He had his faculties suspended for about a month earlier this year.

Only  a month? Well, I guess that's better than nothing.

[Xenia1918]

Ernesto Obregon. But im not sure if he has a wiki. Basically, he got famous for saying anyone who opposes the muslim shrine at Ground Zero is a racist, etc.

primuspilus

Ha. I took a bus with a few friends to NYC for that big protest against the mosque at Ground Zero. Like I argued with some of the lefty-kooky counter-protesters, how does being against a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero make you a "racist", when Islam is not a race but a religion?

Playing the race/religion/gender card gets very old, very fast.

[Wyatt]

What??? There are liberal priests in Eastern Orthodox? I thought your parishes were all bastions of conservative traditionalism.

LOL. I love it.

You realize that the vast majority of the people here view these sorts of posts as incredibly childish and consequentially essentially pay you no heed?

Childish? You mean like the KKK thread?

[Xenia1918]

On Wikipedia:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2011, the homepage of the website of the Archdiocese of Chicago released a statement from Cardinal Francis George in the form of a letter, temporarily suspending Father Pfleger from administering any of the sacraments (save for the administration of the Sacrament of Penance in an emergency, which even laicized or excommunicated priests may do) and from his active ministry as pastor of St. Sabina's Parish. George had recently suggested that Pfleger take the position of president at Chicago's Leo High School, but Pfleger said he would consider leaving the Catholic Church if forced to leave his parish. Cardinal George replied, in part, "If that is truly your attitude, you have already left the Catholic Church". [32] Cardinal George lifted the suspension on May 20, 2011.[33]

If Cardinal George really meant that, why did he lift the suspension?

[primuspilus]

Ha. I took a bus with a few friends to NYC for that big protest against the mosque at Ground Zero. Like I argued with some of the lefty-kooky counter-protesters, how does being against a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero make you a "racist", when Islam is not a race but a religion?

Playing the race/religion/gender card gets very old, very fast

Oh I know that, I was simply stating what he was saying.

primuspilus

[elijahmaria]

On Wikipedia:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2011, the homepage of the website of the Archdiocese of Chicago released a statement from Cardinal Francis George in the form of a letter, temporarily suspending Father Pfleger from administering any of the sacraments (save for the administration of the Sacrament of Penance in an emergency, which even laicized or excommunicated priests may do) and from his active ministry as pastor of St. Sabina's Parish. George had recently suggested that Pfleger take the position of president at Chicago's Leo High School, but Pfleger said he would consider leaving the Catholic Church if forced to leave his parish. Cardinal George replied, in part, "If that is truly your attitude, you have already left the Catholic Church". [32] Cardinal George lifted the suspension on May 20, 2011.[33]

If Cardinal George really meant that, why did he lift the suspension?

For much the same reason your sins are absolved when you go to confession.

Perhaps Pfleger decided he still wants to be Father Pfleger and he repented and was forgiven and restored.

If or when he steps out of line again, perhaps the consequences will be more harsh.

I wonder if that would work for people with habitual sins?

Do you have any habitual sins?  I know I do.

[primuspilus]

or much the same reason your sins are absolved when you go to confession.

Perhaps Pfleger decided he still wants to be Father Pfleger and he repented and was forgiven and restored.

If or when he steps out of line again, perhaps the consequences will be more harsh.

I wonder if that would work for people with habitual sins?

Do you have any habitual sins?  I know I do.

Either way, I think that by the church allowing his escapades to go on will only hurther injure the Roman Catholic name in the USA more than it already is.

What he is doing isnt a habitual thing. He is actively going out and not only saying/doing the things he is doing, but he's advertising it as well. To me, that does not sound too repentant.

primuspilus

[elijahmaria]

or much the same reason your sins are absolved when you go to confession.

Perhaps Pfleger decided he still wants to be Father Pfleger and he repented and was forgiven and restored.

If or when he steps out of line again, perhaps the consequences will be more harsh.

I wonder if that would work for people with habitual sins?

Do you have any habitual sins?  I know I do.

Either way, I think that by the church allowing his escapades to go on will only hurther injure the Roman Catholic name in the USA more than it already is.

What he is doing isnt a habitual thing. He is actively going out and not only saying/doing the things he is doing, but he's advertising it as well. To me, that does not sound too repentant.

primuspilus

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us...

On those grounds alone, I will be happy to extend mercy, for I require mercy or I will burn.

[Xenia1918]

To "do so no more" is the truest repentance.

[elijahmaria]

To "do so no more" is the truest repentance.

When you achieve that let me know...Till then I think that mercy is in order.

[Schultz]

To "do so no more" is the truest repentance.

When you achieve that let me know...Till then I think that mercy is in order.

Personal mercy, yes.

But when a priest continually disobeys his ordinary and is cause for scandal, you cannot...CANNOT...say that he should be allowed to remain in active ministry.

That's what is at issue here, not if he's going to hell or not.  For the good of the church, priests such as Fr. Pfleger (and even his extreme opposites) should and must be disciplined properly.  Methinks the good bishop let Fr. Plfeger off the hook because he was afraid of losing the parishoners at St. Sabina.  We've entered an era where a bishop is afraid to teach the Truth and will let his flock dabble in heresy.  This isn't being pastoral, it's being a coward.

[elijahmaria]

To "do so no more" is the truest repentance.

When you achieve that let me know...Till then I think that mercy is in order.

Personal mercy, yes.

But when a priest continually disobeys his ordinary and is cause for scandal, you cannot...CANNOT...say that he should be allowed to remain in active ministry.

That's what is at issue here, not if he's going to hell or not.  For the good of the church, priests such as Fr. Pfleger (and even his extreme opposites) should and must be disciplined properly.  Methinks the good bishop let Fr. Plfeger off the hook because he was afraid of losing the parishoners at St. Sabina.  We've entered an era where a bishop is afraid to teach the Truth and will let his flock dabble in heresy.  This isn't being pastoral, it's being a coward.

I understand what you are saying.  Time will tell if there is a more severe response necessitated by Father's behavior.  The idea that a parish community will fall away is not a small consideration but it is surely not the only one.  It was not enough to keep him from removing his faculties in the first place.

[TheodoraElizabeth3]

St. Sabina's is a predominately African-American parish, which lends an interesting twist to the whole thing.

Do you mean politically or theological liberal/conservative?

I grew up RC, Orthodox now for 7.5 years, with a 10 year detour of being lapsed and 5 years with the Episcopalians.

The Orthodox priests I've run across in my area (and there are a lot) seem to be, as a whole, pretty theologically conservative. On the political spectrum, I don't really know.

The Catholic priests of my childhood - into the mid-1980s, if I remember correctly, were old school Democrats - VERY pro-life, but agreed with the Dems on everything else. Other than the post-Vatican II watered down stuff, I don't remember any of the weirdness you get in some RC parishes nowaways, with what I've heard from friends and other places.

The Q&A shows of Catholic Answers are great for hearing what's wrong - or at least what RC laity perceive is wrong - with regards to liturgical abuses, priests stonewalling more traditional practices, etc.

[Xenia1918]

To "do so no more" is the truest repentance.

When you achieve that let me know...Till then I think that mercy is in order.

Personal mercy, yes.

But when a priest continually disobeys his ordinary and is cause for scandal, you cannot...CANNOT...say that he should be allowed to remain in active ministry.

That's what is at issue here, not if he's going to hell or not.  For the good of the church, priests such as Fr. Pfleger (and even his extreme opposites) should and must be disciplined properly.  Methinks the good bishop let Fr. Plfeger off the hook because he was afraid of losing the parishoners at St. Sabina.  We've entered an era where a bishop is afraid to teach the Truth and will let his flock dabble in heresy.  This isn't being pastoral, it's being a coward.

I totally agree 1000%. As well as with the reason why I think the Bishop let him off the hook.

[Xenia1918]

St. Sabina's is a predominately African-American parish, which lends an interesting twist to the whole thing.

Do you mean politically or theological liberal/conservative?

I grew up RC, Orthodox now for 7.5 years, with a 10 year detour of being lapsed and 5 years with the Episcopalians.

The Orthodox priests I've run across in my area (and there are a lot) seem to be, as a whole, pretty theologically conservative. On the political spectrum, I don't really know.

The Catholic priests of my childhood - into the mid-1980s, if I remember correctly, were old school Democrats - VERY pro-life, but agreed with the Dems on everything else. Other than the post-Vatican II watered down stuff, I don't remember any of the weirdness you get in some RC parishes nowaways, with what I've heard from friends and other places.

The Q&A shows of Catholic Answers are great for hearing what's wrong - or at least what RC laity perceive is wrong - with regards to liturgical abuses, priests stonewalling more traditional practices, etc.

This is another reason why I'm thankful that when I was in Roman Catholicism, I stuck with the SSPX. Their priests are not only theologically conservative, but EXTREMELY conservative politically (mostly of a European slant, but nonetheless.) I'm thankful that I really have not had to cope with theological OR political liberalism.

[primuspilus]

On those grounds alone, I will be happy to extend mercy, for I require mercy or I will burn.

I totally understand your point on this, however I think that if you do something because "oh, God will forgive me" you're taking advantage of God's Grace in a very dangerous way.

If you are repenting, you truly wish to do that sin no more, even if you do it, you are sincere in not wanting to do it again.

primuspilus

[Nero]

Another part of it is that there aren't many Roman Catholic priests to begin with. You can't suspend them left and right without leaving MAJOR pastoral problems in the diocese.

For comparison, there were 400 priests in our diocese when the Bishop was ordained to priesthood. Now there are 116 active priests.

[Peter J]

What??? There are liberal priests in Eastern Orthodox? I thought your parishes were all bastions of conservative traditionalism.

I thought all liberals were Anglican.

:scratch chin:

[Peter J]

Not sure if about this "liberal" thing versus "conservative," the whole A or B thing is so American media.  As if us "consumers" (in the UK you have subjects, in the USA you have consumers) are incapable of arguing for more than two simple points when the world is grey and not black and white.

Anyway, I like when the priest is liberal with the pouring of Slivovitch versus being conservative and only giving us one shot at the post-Pascha food bash.

Definitions might help ...

As the heretics of yesterday have become the liberals of today, the liberals of yesterday now lay claim to the title "conservative". Consequentially the conservatives came to be known as "traditionalists". Unfortunately, these terms are no longer completely accurate descriptions. So for the purposes of this essay, I will use the following general definitions to delineate the differences between traditionalists and "conservatives":

TRADITIONALIST: One who challenges the novel practices and teachings of Catholics (including bishops and priests) which appear to contradict the prior teaching of the Church. A traditionalist questions the prudence of new pastoral approaches and holds the belief that those things generally deemed objectively good or evil several decades ago remain so today.

"CONSERVATIVE": One who upholds and defends the current policies and positions of the Church hierarchy regardless of their novelty. A "conservative" extends the definitions of "infallibility" and "Magisterium" to include most every action and speech of the Pope and those Cardinals around him, but may exclude those Cardinals and bishops outside of Rome. A "conservative's" opinion is also subject to change depending on the current actions of the Holy Father. "Conservative" will be used it in quotation marks to avoid the misleading connotation of being diametrically opposed to liberalism or on the far right of the spectrum. Also since there only exists a desire to "conserve" only those traditions and practices of the past deemed appropriate at any given time by the present Pope. The quotation marks will also ensure a proper dissociation between the actual conservatives active prior to and during Vatican II (Ottaviani, Lefebvre, Fenton, etc.).

Both traditionalists and "conservatives" acknowledge the existence of problems in the Church but disagree as to their nature, extent, causes and remedies.

"Conservatives" see it as an "illness" — an incidental problem like a gangrene limb. In the English-speaking world, this problem may be limited to the actions of certain American bishops. "Conservatives" see the novelties of Vatican II and the New Mass as natural and acceptable developments in the course of the Church, but take issue with those seeking to expand upon those novelties, or take them to their next logical progression. They see the crisis in the Church as a societal issue that would have happened regardless of what actions the Church leadership had taken. Their solution is to return to Vatican II and embark on another attempt to "renew" the Church.

Traditionalists see the illness as a widespread cancer affecting the whole body put most particularly and critically the heart. They question the prudence of making significant changes in the Mass and the Church's pastoral orientation. They attribute the destruction to liberal and Modernist ideals given a certain degree of acceptability once the Church decided to stop fighting them with extreme vigilance. They see the Church leadership as sharing in the responsibility for the crisis due to its governance (or lack thereof). Their solution is not another attempt at a reform that may be "more in line with the 'spirit' of Vatican II" (shudder), but a return to the practices and beliefs of the Church that sustained it for hundreds of years prior.

- A Brief Defense of Traditionalism
Peter W. Miller

[Xenia1918]

Another part of it is that there aren't many Roman Catholic priests to begin with. You can't suspend them left and right without leaving MAJOR pastoral problems in the diocese.

For comparison, there were 400 priests in our diocese when the Bishop was ordained to priesthood. Now there are 116 active priests.

SSPX seminaries are literally bursting at the seams. 

[Iconodule]

Another part of it is that there aren't many Roman Catholic priests to begin with. You can't suspend them left and right without leaving MAJOR pastoral problems in the diocese.

For comparison, there were 400 priests in our diocese when the Bishop was ordained to priesthood. Now there are 116 active priests.

SSPX seminaries are literally bursting at the seams. 

Really? Sounds expensive. 

[Nero]

Another part of it is that there aren't many Roman Catholic priests to begin with. You can't suspend them left and right without leaving MAJOR pastoral problems in the diocese.

For comparison, there were 400 priests in our diocese when the Bishop was ordained to priesthood. Now there are 116 active priests.

SSPX seminaries are literally bursting at the seams. 

Really? Sounds expensive. 

I don't doubt it. The only part of Roman Catholicism that seems to be moderately thriving is the traditional sector. Even seminaries that require 7 years of training, like Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary run by the traditionalist FSSP, have higher output than their Novus Ordo counterparts.

[Xenia1918]

Another part of it is that there aren't many Roman Catholic priests to begin with. You can't suspend them left and right without leaving MAJOR pastoral problems in the diocese.

For comparison, there were 400 priests in our diocese when the Bishop was ordained to priesthood. Now there are 116 active priests.

SSPX seminaries are literally bursting at the seams.  

Really? Sounds expensive.  

I don't doubt it. The only part of Roman Catholicism that seems to be moderately thriving is the traditional sector. Even seminaries that require 7 years of training, like Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary run by the traditionalist FSSP, have higher output than their Novus Ordo counterparts.

Its true. I was reading an article about it recently; the SSPX seminary in Minnesota    is over their capacity with seminarians, assigning more to each room than the rooms were built to handle, while awaiting a new seminary being built for them in Virginia.

There are several articles about it online, but this is straight from their website:

http://www.sspxseminary.org/publications/announcements-archive/511.html

[TheMathematician]

Another part of it is that there aren't many Roman Catholic priests to begin with. You can't suspend them left and right without leaving MAJOR pastoral problems in the diocese.

For comparison, there were 400 priests in our diocese when the Bishop was ordained to priesthood. Now there are 116 active priests.

SSPX seminaries are literally bursting at the seams. 

Really? Sounds expensive. 

I don't doubt it. The only part of Roman Catholicism that seems to be moderately thriving is the traditional sector. Even seminaries that require 7 years of training, like Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary run by the traditionalist FSSP, have higher output than their Novus Ordo counterparts.

also with that, diocese such as Phoenix and Denver i want to say(something on colorado) have higher ordination rates and applications than their more liberal dioceses. incidentally, they have no female altar servers

[Robb]

Another part of it is that there aren't many Roman Catholic priests to begin with. You can't suspend them left and right without leaving MAJOR pastoral problems in the diocese.

For comparison, there were 400 priests in our diocese when the Bishop was ordained to priesthood. Now there are 116 active priests.

SSPX seminaries are literally bursting at the seams.  

Really? Sounds expensive.  

I don't doubt it. The only part of Roman Catholicism that seems to be moderately thriving is the traditional sector. Even seminaries that require 7 years of training, like Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary run by the traditionalist FSSP, have higher output than their Novus Ordo counterparts.

Yeah, but in those cases there are just on or two Traditionalist seminaries in North America.  If there were ten or twenty of them, would they be as filled to capacity as the two already in existence?
I think a lot of the hype about Traditional Catholicism's growth is just that, hype.  I've looked at statistics which show that, since the Pope's Moto Proprio freeing the old Latin Mass in 2007, the number of TLM's hasn't increased as dramatically as some would have us think.  Traditional Catholicism seems to thrive only because the trads as a whole are a rather clannish and insulated group (I've notice numerous Trad priest who have the same last names which makes me be live that they are of the same, usually large Families).  Insulation,. combined with small numbers to begin with can give the impression then any group of people is larger then they appear to be.

[orthonorm]

Ha. I took a bus with a few friends to NYC for that big protest against the mosque at Ground Zero. Like I argued with some of the lefty-kooky counter-protesters, how does being against a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero make you a "racist", when Islam is not a race but a religion?

Playing the race/religion/gender card gets very old, very fast.

Do you even read your posts before posting them?

Being against it just pretty much means you have no understanding of the tenets of Liberal Democracy. And that you "protest" it, you have too much time on your hands.

[stanley123]

To "do so no more" is the truest repentance.

When you achieve that let me know...Till then I think that mercy is in order.

Personal mercy, yes.

But when a priest continually disobeys his ordinary and is cause for scandal, you cannot...CANNOT...say that he should be allowed to remain in active ministry.

That's what is at issue here, not if he's going to hell or not.  For the good of the church, priests such as Fr. Pfleger (and even his extreme opposites) should and must be disciplined properly.  Methinks the good bishop let Fr. Plfeger off the hook because he was afraid of losing the parishoners at St. Sabina.  We've entered an era where a bishop is afraid to teach the Truth and will let his flock dabble in heresy.  This isn't being pastoral, it's being a coward.

Maybe it is the priest shortage that is causing a leniency in discipline?

[Peter J]

Being against it just pretty much means you have no understanding of the tenets of Liberal Democracy.

Isn't one of those tenets is being able to be "against"?

[orthonorm]

Being against it just pretty much means you have no understanding of the tenets of Liberal Democracy.

Isn't one of those tenets is being able to be "against"?

There is no law against foolishness.

Go be "against" the building of a Baptist Church which has complied with all the ordinances covering its building based on the fact it is a Baptist Church.

Give me a break.

[Xenia1918]

Ha. I took a bus with a few friends to NYC for that big protest against the mosque at Ground Zero. Like I argued with some of the lefty-kooky counter-protesters, how does being against a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero make you a "racist", when Islam is not a race but a religion?

Playing the race/religion/gender card gets very old, very fast.

Do you even read your posts before posting them?

Being against it just pretty much means you have no understanding of the tenets of Liberal Democracy. And that you "protest" it, you have too much time on your hands.

I was not protesting the existence of a mosque. I was protesting the LOCATION chosen for it...right at the heart of Ground Zero. My husband lost a very good friend and co-worker in 9/11, I don't know of a single family member of those lost on 9/11 who felt the mosque should be placed right near the center of that tragedy.

[orthonorm]

Ha. I took a bus with a few friends to NYC for that big protest against the mosque at Ground Zero. Like I argued with some of the lefty-kooky counter-protesters, how does being against a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero make you a "racist", when Islam is not a race but a religion?

Playing the race/religion/gender card gets very old, very fast.

Do you even read your posts before posting them?

Being against it just pretty much means you have no understanding of the tenets of Liberal Democracy. And that you "protest" it, you have too much time on your hands.

I was not protesting the existence of a mosque. I was protesting the LOCATION chosen for it...right at the heart of Ground Zero. My husband lost a very good friend and co-worker in 9/11,I don't know of a single family member of those lost on 9/11 who felt the mosque should be placed right near the center of that tragedy.

Well that is a compelling argument. //::=|

[Stephen St. Pierre]

I was not protesting the existence of a mosque. I was protesting the LOCATION chosen for it...right at the heart of Ground Zero. My husband lost a very good friend and co-worker in 9/11, I don't know of a single family member of those lost on 9/11 who felt the mosque should be placed right near the center of that tragedy.

What does a mosque have to do with 9/11? Did you know there was already a mosque IN the one of the twin towers before they were destroyed?

http://www.businessinsider.com/there-already-was-a-ground-zero-mosque-2010-9

[orthonorm]

I was not protesting the existence of a mosque. I was protesting the LOCATION chosen for it...right at the heart of Ground Zero. My husband lost a very good friend and co-worker in 9/11, I don't know of a single family member of those lost on 9/11 who felt the mosque should be placed right near the center of that tragedy.

What does a mosque have to do with 9/11? Did you know there was already a mosque IN the one of the twin towers before they were destroyed?

http://www.businessinsider.com/there-already-was-a-ground-zero-mosque-2010-9

Don't confuse the folks with facts. The only thing worse would be a synagoge. //:=|

Actually, what would be worse is creating a hub of buildings dedicated to the slicing up of creation into commodities to be bought and sold and banks to back the speculative interests of those to exploit the ignorance of others.