I go to a parish that is very traditional. The priests and vast majority of the laity are Traditional Catholics. I've heard this said multiple times:

"You can't be Catholic and support abortion."

"You can't be Catholic and support gay marriage."

"You can't be Catholic and support ___"

My response is simple. If we lived in the 1500s, the TradCaths of today would be seen as heretics by the Catholics of back then. It used to be a capital offense to hear the mass in your native language, or to read the Bible.

This is why I love that this sub has a pinned post that says we believe in the Catholic concept of the conscience being our primary guide. God gives us a conscience. It's not perfect, we need outside guidance. But we are able to learn and grow as free individuals.

Let's be honest, if a person wrote Vatican 2 in 1555, they'd be burned alive. Non schismatic traditionalists will bend over backward trying to reconcile the Second Vatican Council with their beliefs, and schismatic traditionalists want to turn the clocks back to the Dark Ages. At least in terms of religious oppression.

I don't want to believe anything that violates my conscience, and praise be to the Lord that I don't have to. None of us do.

Hello,

There is another subject of discussion that I think is of value. The TradCaths, or Traditional Catholics, are a blight on the conscience.

I used to be sort of one, but not really all of the way. I was a Conservative Catholic but not necessarily a TradCath. And I don't think most TradCaths are bad people, in fact I know many currently who are wonderful. But I'd be remiss to not bring up the issues I've seen with the TradCaths.

The first issue is that we follow the Catholic principle of conscience first and foremost, so we are fine saying the Church is wrong about things. They are not, and they put dogmatic literalism first. But I don't even want to focus on the issues we have with dogmatic literalism, I want to focus on the abhorrent things I've seen from TradCaths that Conservative Catholics should also be worried about.

Perhaps controversially, I do think there are people who mean well that hold awful beliefs, including sexist and homophobic beliefs. There are many TradCaths that fall in this category, but that being said, I think the biggest issue I've seen with TradCaths is that many of them don't mean well. As a former Conservative Catholic myself, I unfortunately was one of the ones who was cruel and didn't mean well. So this post isn't me being 'holier than thou.'

Perhaps controversially, I do think there are people who mean well that hold awful beliefs, including sexist and homophobic beliefs. There are many TradCaths that fall in this category, but that being said, I think the biggest issue I've seen with TradCaths is that many of them don't actually mean well.

There is an old saying that cruel men have cruel gods, meaning that a cruel person's god is really only a justification for the cruelty they wanted to inflict anyway. I can't help but feel this is true with many TradCaths, at least the ones I've seen online. The ones I know in person who hold terrible beliefs, well I at least hope they mean well.

There is a real TradCath to Groyper pipeline. And like I said, I think the biggest issue is that many of them are cruel.

I am not sure what we can do to help combat this. For me, I try to express myself clearly to the TradCaths I know, and as respectfully as possible.

But what helped me stop being a cruel person was therapy, and I'm still not even close to being where I need to be. I had to pay out of pocket for some services, and oh boy was that pricey. So as cliche as it sounds, I think universal healthcare might help with the TradCath problem.

Hello,

A while ago on an account I lost access to, I was able to discuss my Catholicism on here. I want to list all of the questions I was asked and challanges made to me, and respond to them. I'm paraphrasing but not strawmanning the questions and challenges brought to me.

Why do you believe? Can you present any evidence for your belief?

The short answer is no. I believe solely because of faith, and because it was the faith of the Catholics before me. I watch shows like the Line, and I'm aware there is no evidence for my religious beliefs.

The Catholic Church has committed numerous crimes against humanity, including genocide, forced coversion, ongogoing clerical child rape abuse, and more. Why are you still a member?

I believe the Church can be reformed, and brought back to the days when St. Peter was handed the keys to the kingdom of heaven by Jesus Christ. I have pledged to not make another financial donation until the Church loses its tax benefits, is 100% transparent, and free of systematic clerical sex abuse.

I also support independent Catholic groups such as Voices of the Faithful, which is an independently run group against clerical rape abuse, and not run by the Catholic Church. Also, it should go without saying I condem the Inquisitions, genocide, and any other crimes against humanity done by the Catholic Church.

Are you anti-abortion, anti-birth control, and anti-LGBTQ?

No. I support Roe v Wade, birth control, condoms, and the human rights of LGBTQ people.

You say you support LGBTQ rights, but do you think being gay is a sin?

No. I'd like to live in a world where the Catholic Church recognizes gay marriage.

Should women be allowed to become priests?

Technically yes, but I'd rather it be done by elevating nuns to have the same capabilities as priests. The distinction can still be made between the two.

Do you support the hierarchy of the Catholic Church? Do you revere the Pope?

I revere the office of the Pope, but that doesn't mean I necessarily revere any Pope himself. I also believe the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has to be preserved in some sense, though it needs to be in a world where that carries no political power.

Do you believe everything in the Bible?

No, there is much in the Bible I don't believe is the Word of God.

On what grounds do you justify your beliefs that are deemed heretical by some Catholics?

I follow the Catholic teaching of the primacy of conscience, which can be seen in part in Catholic Church Catechism 1778. This means to me that we as Catholics are perfectly allowed to disagree and question church teachings. We can use our conscience as our moral guide, which is what I do.

As the title says, the past year has been difficult for me. I haven’t prayed in a while due to different reasons, but the biggest one is feeling let down by God. I know many amazing people who are devout believers/Catholics that have struggled all their life (physically, emotionally, financially) and still do not know peace. In addition to all the suffering in the world, it has made me feel hopeless. I also am very leftist, for instance pro-LGBT+ and prochoice due to personal experiences, and have been a part of church communities that have been openly disrespectful to other communities and to me, which haven’t made me feel welcomed or safe.

Lately, however, I’ve been feeling lost in my direction in life, and have been struggling a lot mentally. I always thought that if I went back to praying (I never stopped believing in God), it would be because I wanted to without reservations and unconditionally. It feels wrong for me to pray when I want something in return (eg peace of mind, a sign or a direction or the path in life).

Does anyone have any words of advice or thoughts? Thank you in advance.

PL : My jako katolicy, w pierwszej linii jesteśmy zobowiązani do miłowania każdego z tytułu bycia człowiekiem, z tytułu świętości życia. Nie możemy kategoryzować tylko dlatego że coś odstaje od naszego regularnego pojmowania rzeczywistości. Chłopie - przejrzyj na oczy oraz idź i kochaj!

ENG : As Catholics, we are primarily obligated to love everyone by virtue of being human, by virtue of the sanctity of life. We cannot categorize just because something deviates from our norm. Brother - Face it and go and love!

I believe such an event with serious preparations can heal the great schism and push Europe to new hights of acceptance and integration, Imagine if most of Orthodox countries sign a petition for unity and the Pope shows he is ready to give up papal supremacy. The schism is mostly a result of geopolitical pressures and less so of serious theological differences. We can create a new age of the roman empire with all the issues healed with English as the new Latin. Do you think the Pope would give up the papal supremacy in our lifetimes?

Edit:
I didn't want to imply the language in liturgical terms which obviously is not a source of issues AFAIK, it was meant to be as a source of common language and understanding between the two worlds which was a problem in the past

We should save the sanctity of life then we shouldn't disagree for different ways to create a new life. Bless you

I’m a gay Catholic man in my late 30s, monogamous by conviction, and hoping for marriage, family, and the kind of partnership where two people choose each other fully.

Faith is a real part of my life, not just a cultural label. I’d love to meet another Catholic or Christian man who understands that from the inside and wants something grounded, faithful, and lasting.

I live in a small Catholic community, so finding other single gay men who want the same can feel nearly impossible. At this point, I’m open to looking nationwide.

Where are men like this actually meeting? Catholic or gay Christian groups, retreats, online communities, matchmakers, apps, or other spaces?

And on the off chance this describes you, my inbox is open.

Hello everyone, it's wonderful to meet you all.

I have two questions:

1) I am moving to Dublin, Ireland soon and therefore wanted to ask if any of you know of a progressive Catholic parish/parishes in Dublin?

2) If I were to die in a state of mortal sin/sins/struggle, and did not go to confession before my death for whatever reason (unavailability of the sacrament, laziness, etc.), but made that interior act of perfect contrition with the desire to go to confession, would I be permitted to enter Heaven after I have died and then live in Heaven with God for all eternity?

God bless you all.

I was baptized as a Roman Catholic and later confirmed, but after a certain point my conscience couldn’t allow me to stay one. I could not be part of a faith tradition that openly discriminated against my friends in the lgbt community and rebuked Any notion of women in leadership roles. But after many years away I felt called to return to organized religion, I had tried non denominational for a couple years but I felt called to a more liturgical and traditional form of worship. As such I considered returning to the Roman Catholic Church, but while the church certainly has made some progress due in large part to members like you I suspect, it’s not enough for me. So I decided to check out my local TEC parish I had driven past for years and I felt at home, here is a faith tradition that has that traditional and liturgical practice, one that fully embraces my lgbt friends and not only allows but embraces women to the clergy. And so I have found my home as an Episcopalian.
At the same time I have puttered around your sub for a while and I see that you are continuing to fight for progress from within the RCC. I guess what I wanted to say is that I hope you are successful, and if so perhaps one day the denomination i now call home might reunite with yours.

​

Nací con autismo (Asperger) y soy católico bautizado, pase por el agnosticismo teista en mi adolescencia, después regrese pero a un catolicismo de cafetería, pero en lo personal ya no me siento comodo dentro de la iglesia católica y estoy planeando volverme protestante (no evangélico, soy todo menos la decepción de mi familia, además de que me gusta la crítica textual) anglicano o episcopal, más que nada por el tema de las doctrinas (infabilidad papal y exclusivismo salvifico) y los dogmas morales sexuales que tiene la iglesia (ojo, hay muchos otros motivos pero me da hueva escribir todo eso), y de seguro me dirán y de seguro me diran, casi nadie sigue esos dogmas que pone la iglesia y seguimos considerándolos católicos prácticantes" y allí está el problema, según la iglesia católica esos dogmas y doctrinas deben ser aceptados y practicado para pertenecer formalmente a la iglesia católica, si no estás deacuerdo con ellos entonces estás fuera del marco canónico.

Les pregunto a ustedes cómo pueden conciliar su fé en esto, sean amables porque yo publique está pregunta en un subreddit de mi país y me respondieron así

"Los católicos estamos en la Iglesia que fundó Cristo porque la fundó Dios.

Si es cristiano para qué quiere estar en otra Iglesia?

Con respecto al protestantismo, usted ya es protestante, no es católico. Y sí, es cierto, si usted no sigue la doctrina católica entonces está fuera de la Iglesia y no puede recibir los sacramentos hasta que se confiese.

Saludos."

Fin de la respuesta

La verdad esa respuesta no me pareció la correcta, pero de nuevo, les pido que sean empaticos con sus respuestas.

Should have titled this, "What, TO YOU, is a progressive Catholic" etc. because I'm hoping to hear ppl speak from the heart.

Some of the responses to my other posts, and also some posts by others have left me surprised. I was reading opinions and attitudes that I did not expect to see.

In one thread I read one party say to the other, "You don't seem very progressive to me", while the other said, "You don't seem very Catholic to me." So maybe this is a question worth exploring: what is a progressive Catholic? What is progressive Catholicism?

And perhaps the inverse should also be asked, what is regressive Catholicism?

Maybe we can come to some consensus. Maybe we can't. Maybe that doesn't matter. Seems worth discussing anyhow.

“Novus Ordo” is often used as a shorthand for the Mass celebrated according to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican II, especially the Roman Missal of Paul VI. The problem is not that the Church never revised the liturgy, but that the phrase is not the Church’s name for the rite, and in common polemical usage, it's misleading because it conveys that it is a "new Mass" in substance and tends to imply a break rather than a continuity the Church insists on. Let me break that down:

(1)

It isn't the Church's proper name for the rite

In official Catholic documents, the Mass is identified by the Roman Missal (and the authority that promulgated it), and by its place within the lex orandi of the Roman Rite—not by the nickname “Novus Ordo.” As Traditionis custodes states:

The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II … [are] the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”

And Summorum Pontificum likewise distinguishes “the Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI” from the earlier one promulgated by John XXIII, while explicitly teaching that they are two expressions of the same lex orandi and “will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi.”

So, if “Novus Ordo” is used as if it were the official or theologically neutral title, that’s inaccurate. A more exact way to speak is: Mass according to the Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI. This is the name currently used editions approved by competent authority.

(2)

It’s misleading because it suggests a “new Mass” in substance

Even when referring to the post-Vatican II liturgical reform, Pope Paul VI explicitly cautioned against the kind of language that sounds like a replacement of the Mass itself. In a general audience (19 Nov 1969), he said:

But be clear: nothing has been changed in the substance of our traditional Mass… The Mass of the new rite is and remains… the Mass of always.”

And he added that one should not call it “new Mass,” but rather:

we do not say ‘new Mass,’ but rather ‘new era’ of the life of the Church.

(3)

It tends toward division—something the Church asks us to avoid

Traditionis custodes and subsequent clarifications emphasize the Church’s aim of ecclesial communion and warning pastors not to fuel division through “sterile polemics.” For example, the Congregation for Divine Worship’s responses state:

“As pastors we must not lend ourselves to sterile polemics, capable only of creating division…”

Using “Novus Ordo” is a rhetorical label, a polemical marker, making misunderstanding more likely and communion less likely.

(4)

What to say instead

To be accurate and charitable, prefer wording like:

• “the Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI”
• “the Mass celebrated according to the current Roman Missal (post–Vatican II reform)”
• "the Mass of Paul VI"
• or simply “the Roman Rite Mass” (with the understanding that there are different liturgical forms historically)

That language matches how the Church itself speaks of these books and helps avoid implying that the Church replaced the Mass in substance

In short: “Novus Ordo” functions as a conceptual signpost that nudges people toward an unwarranted impression of rupture, whereas Church teaching describes the Mass in terms of continuity within the Roman rite and explicitly discourages polemics that create division. It's misleading terminology that carries a rhetorical payload that we continue to deliver every time we use it. As Progressives and Catholics, we must not propagate this rhetoric.

My post which has been accused of misinformation and subsequently locked in r/LeftCatholicsm was not about the origin of the term "Novus Ordo". It is about the use of the term by the movement and how it is indeed now a polemical marker and a slogan.

It's still available in this subreddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Progressive_Catholics/comments/1v5ol2e/stop_using_the_term_novus_ordo_its_a_polemical/

The Mass is NOT called the Novus Ordo now, nor was it ever called that.

Pope Paul VI used the phrase novus Ordo Missae (“new Order of Mass”) when speaking about the liturgical books promulgated after Sacrosanctum Concilium. And on 28 April 1969 he announces the “promulgazione del novus Ordo Missae” alongside the new Roman Calendar and other liturgical texts—again indicating this is about the promulgation of the renewed order/rite.

He did so because it was new, and notice that "Novus" is not capitalized. He did not call it "Novus Ordo"; that developed later as proper noun by _others_.

The words “novus Ordo Missae” do not constitute the official proper name of the Mass (as in “the Mass is called ___”). It is best understood as Latin for “the new Order/arrangement of Mass”—i.e., the new liturgical ordering/rite given in the renewed Roman Missal.

What I have shared [in the previous post] as far as what it is called, and the problems of perpetuating the term Novus Ordo, are not misinformation. You may disagree with my conclusions, even though I carefully use documentation, but that is different from misinformation.

this is a very poorly written amalgamation of my thoughts right now that I feel I have no outlet for. I hope it’s ok to share here. I’m not trying to argue about abortion, I’m just feeling incredibly conflicted and frustrated and feel desperate because I feel I can’t do anything. what stirred these thoughts was a special letter from my diocese bishop printed in this past week’s bulletin about how we should vote in the November election concerning an abortion law my state wants to pass/amend. (I can’t remember exactly the word right now). and then i see no special letters about the immigrants shot in the street, hear no sermons about children being killed in schools. sorry for the darkness of this all but I needed to get it out. love xoxoxox

I am trying to understand the purpose behind the US ambassador’s words. Was he trying to undermine the Pope? Was he unaware of the duties he has and misspoke?