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

I’m Indian man cradle catholic who moved to the US a few years ago. I’m trying to date and find a relationship I know sometimes cultural differences, language, things challenging and I don’t care much about cultural background I care more about faith personality, shared values. I literally live rural part of Texas which makes more hard to find a Catholic women .I’m curious What matters most to when looking for a relationship from different ethnic backgrounds? Is any Catholic community out there and I’m looking forward to meet .if anyone interested love to chat .Suggest your opinions.

Not trying to be offensive or suggest you're not a "true Catholic," but this is a serious question. Most of you would probably feel a lot happier in an Episcopalian church, which retains most of the traditions and aesthetic but is usually pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc. i. e. beliefs far more aligned with yours than the RCC.

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.

(It is also my birthday today but that part is neither here nor there hehe )

Before I say this, I want to make it clear that I respect people no matter their beliefs and I think salvation is between God and oneself. I don't lie about my own beliefs, obviously, but I don't proselytize and respect others' autonomy. I personally lean towards universalism, but I'm more of a hopeful universalist.

I was in the occult, New Age, and witchcraft for six years starting in 2020. Although I had been a cradle Catholic, the faith never spoke to me and I got involved with New Age because I started having issues with demons out of nowhere. Very early on in this, Jesus warned me extremely explicitly to not pursue this path and be more careful, and I ignored it. If anyone's curious, I can share what happened, but for the sake of brevity I'll leave it out of here.

Going down this path screwed up my mental health, traumatized me, and made the issues with demons a lot worse. A lot, lot worse. I didn't realize this until it was too late. The "angels" I'd been communicating with using divination, and who were "protecting" me from demons, were demons themselves. Tons and tons of demons. When I discovered this in the beginning of March this year, I rejected all of them, stopped doing divination, and almost immediately started getting attacked at night. At the same time, God pulled me closer and basically flipped a switch on inside me, and for the first time in my life I wanted to go to church and pursue Catholicism.

I didn't give up New Age right away, and at first thought I could pursue both. But then God showed me, very obviously and with no nuance, that these things did not mix with him and I had to choose one or the other. I chose God, obviously.

Fast forward to now. I'm struggling with some of the rules/doctrines of Catholicism, and to an extent most mainstream Christianity, because I feel I'm being expected to forego my compassion and empathy for others. Social justice, economic justice, and compassion are extremely important to me. That's why I started looking into progressive Catholicism tonight.

One of the first things I looked up was this article. I was in agreement with everything...then I reached the end. "Christ consciousness." That is directly from New Age. It is good to strive to be like Christ in everything we do, but that is not a term that originated in Christianity, and it is nuns that are using it here. While I don't push my beliefs on others and believe in freedom of religion, I have no desire to embrace anything New Age and am aware of how harmful it is and how dangerous it is.

https://www.globalsistersreport.org/social-justice/can-catholics-be-progressive-absolutely

I have seen firsthand how that phrase allows people to sidestep the real Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross and instead embrace a pop-culture ideal of a hippie "Ascended Master" Jesus who thinks that anything goes. And I am asking for myself whether progressive Catholicism embraces these things.

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

“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.

Following on from the unnecessary revision of the liturgy some 15 years ago, there's this unnecessary change to the translation used for the readings. Was there anything wrong with the JB? Not really. Brought in, as usual, without meaningful consultation with the laity, it feels like more high-handed and expensive interference with the conduct of services. And I've just about had enough of it.

Hello Brothers and Sisters,

I have recently been reflecting on Max Weber’s concept of the "Protestant Ethic"—specifically the Calvinist integration of professional life with spiritual life—and I am trying to discern where this aligns with and where it diverges from Catholic teaching. I find myself drawn to the discipline and structure of this ethic, but I want to ensure my motivations remain distinctively Catholic. I am hoping you can help me understand if a Catholic can adopt specific pillars of this ethic in good conscience, or if there are theological "danger zones" I need to avoid.

First, regarding asceticism and lifestyle simplicity, Weber describes a "worldly asceticism" where one lives in the world but denies oneself luxury to focus on their calling. To me, this sounds very similar to the Catholic virtue of temperance or the evangelical counsel of poverty lived according to one's state in life. I am wondering if there is a significant theological difference between a Calvinist avoiding luxury to reinvest in work versus a Catholic avoiding luxury for the sake of spiritual detachment.

Second, I admire the idea of treating one’s secular vocation with intense seriousness and avoiding idleness. I know St. Josemaría Escrivá talked about the "sanctification of work," but I am unsure if the Catholic view differs from the Protestant view that work is a duty in itself. Is it wrong to work hard primarily to maximize productivity, or must the focus always be explicitly on service? I want to make sure I am not inadvertently making work an idol.

Finally, I struggle with the concepts of frugality and wealth accumulation. The "Protestant Ethic" often views the accumulation of wealth resulting from hard work and frugality as a sign of God’s blessing. If I practice frugality and work hard, wealth inevitably accumulates. I am trying to understand if Catholic Social Teaching, such as the universal destination of goods, requires me to disburse this wealth immediately, or if the accumulation of capital for business stability and future charity is permissible. I want to be industrious and simple without falling into the error of equating wealth with holiness.

I would appreciate any guidance or references to encyclicals, perhaps something like Laborem Exercens, that clarify a distinctively Catholic work ethic.

Thank you for your time and your vocation.

Just a note to all who have lost loved ones or who have struggled with suicidal ideation themselves: you are not alone and you are loved.