- Status
C
C.Ray
Guest
For me it just means someone who prefers the traditional liturgy, its style, and sacred music.
Personally I find the modern styles to be distasteful. I like Latin, Gregorian chant, Romanesque or Gothic buildings, and so on over contemporary music, buildings that look like Space Mountain, or priests dressed like something out of Planet of the Apes.
But that’s really all it is for me. If some folks need kumbaya and liturgical dancers, live and let live.
Personally I find the modern styles to be distasteful. I like Latin, Gregorian chant, Romanesque or Gothic buildings, and so on over contemporary music, buildings that look like Space Mountain, or priests dressed like something out of Planet of the Apes.
But that’s really all it is for me. If some folks need kumbaya and liturgical dancers, live and let live.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
Sure, that is why the poster is recommending using older Catechisms. If they are not in conflict, why shouldn’t we all use the current Catechism?
T
TMC
Guest
I am not the one doing that, thanks.
J
Jbrady
Guest
I would trust the ministerium of the Church. It will usually turn out that either my understanding of older teachings is faulty, my understanding of newer teachings is faulty, or, more likely, both, and there is no contradiction or “ambiguity”, a word that radical traditionlists love to toss about with gleeful abandon.
In other words, the possibility that they might be wrong has never crossed their mind, has it? Of course they know a lot more than thousands of bishops, theologians and scholars who have spent their whole lives studying the faith. Especially “Frankie”, as they fondly call him. And of course, the best sources of information on doctrine are sedevacantist blogs run by disgruntled unemployed middle-aged men living in their mom’s basement.
Sorry, but if one doesn’t trust the Pope and Bishops on matters of faith and morals, and by extension, does not trust the Holy Spirit, what is the point of that person claiming to be Catholic at all?
Last edited:
C
CroatCatholic
Guest
Hey, Bataar.
I am not really informed on the VII documents and so, but a lot of people say that the faith can be lived the same as before VII. Don’t know if it answers your question, or is true for you, but it is an answer nonetheless.
Peace!
I am not really informed on the VII documents and so, but a lot of people say that the faith can be lived the same as before VII. Don’t know if it answers your question, or is true for you, but it is an answer nonetheless.
Peace!
Last edited:
L
Lysander
Guest
You are assuming too much and should stop. Did the person say the new one shouldnt be used or did they just not mention it? Stop bearing false witness against someone else. I am out of this.
Emeraldlady
New member
I’m responding fully aware that the OP is a soon to be catechumen trying to fathom attitudes of Catholics of a certain bent. When such a person answers the enquiry with do a bit of reading of Catechisms and you to can judge the errors of the modern Church like we do, I’m compelled to point out that Catholics don’t entertain such an approach. That is the spirit of the protestors.
When the protestors 500 years ago were researching the faith in order to reject the Pope, this is what St Teresa of Avila, mystic and Doctor of the Church responded.
“At that time, the news reached me of harm being done to the Church, and that the works of her opponents were flourishing. This news distressed me greatly, and I wondered if I could do anything. I cried to the Lord and begged him that I might be his instrument to help remedy such evils…”
“As a result, I resolved that there was little that I could accomplish through my own limited power… So I discerned that I should follow the evangelical counsels as perfectly as I could, and invite others to do the same. It was was my desire that since the Lord has many enemies, and so few friends, that his few friends should be good ones…”
The most universal of those counsels is obedience. So if a very holy and learned Doctor of the Church could invite people to perfect obedience, I feel very safe in inviting the OP to reject the undertone of dissent and trust that obedience to our Pope and our Church is a sound way.
S
stpurl
Guest
There is a difference between the Protestant reformers, who left the church, and any Catholic today who happens to prefer a certain liturgy or who is seeking to fully understand his or her faith and, without in any way doubting, demanding, ‘disobeying’, or ‘hating Pope Francis’, respectfully seeks to find, through the perusal of authentic church documents, asking the counsel of authentic Church leaders even ones whom others don’t like, etc. guidance in order to indeed faithfully and obediently follow Christ.
It is understandable that some people might feel offended if their perceptions (which are as fallible as anything else) are that another person is doing ‘wrong’. And it’s perfectly fine to gently ‘talk with’ a person, or even to firmly detail one’s own position (respectfully).
Where these threads and forums too often fail is that a ‘zeal for the truth’ often leads to rather nasty charges of ‘faithlessness’, ‘disobedience’, ‘leading astray’, and above all the earliest OP charges that some ‘label’ attached to a Catholic means that by its mere application, that Catholic isn’t a ‘real’ Catholic.
It is understandable that some people might feel offended if their perceptions (which are as fallible as anything else) are that another person is doing ‘wrong’. And it’s perfectly fine to gently ‘talk with’ a person, or even to firmly detail one’s own position (respectfully).
Where these threads and forums too often fail is that a ‘zeal for the truth’ often leads to rather nasty charges of ‘faithlessness’, ‘disobedience’, ‘leading astray’, and above all the earliest OP charges that some ‘label’ attached to a Catholic means that by its mere application, that Catholic isn’t a ‘real’ Catholic.
Emeraldlady
New member
I don’t know what rose coloured glasses you are viewing these threads through, but I’m with my Bishops and the Pope that there are dangerously toxic anti Catholic attitudes in the traditionalist movement and these have even been detailed by traditionalist exorcist Fr Ripperger. You don’t seem to see or accept those things as toxic. My main job in this world is to be the mother of 3 new adult children. When they were young, I like my own parents, found defending them against the enemy of secular sins, indifference, unchastity, anti life ideologies. Today, my contribution to their adult formation consists predominantly of warning them about the dangers within the Church ie the gnostics, those undermining the authority of the Pope. The hypocrits all outwards show but filled with hatred and judgement on the inside. Those who paint the Ordinary form of the Mass as in an above post as kumbya and Planet of the Apes costumes. Pretty nasty stuff in my perception.
L
Lysander
Guest
Again didnt respond to the post above. Stop it. Instead of making grand statements that are off topic of the person you are responding to. Actually read their statement. You and a few other people on this thread are mad that people are reading older documents written by the Catholic Church. If you want to actually argue with radTrads who dont agree with Vatican 2, find them and argue with them. I am not against Vatican 2 and the person you responded to didnt say they were against Vatican 2. If you continue i will just flag it.
Last edited:
J
Jbrady
Guest
Yes, someone has. See post 26. And this is very far from being an uncommon sentiment among Traditionalists, particularly those of the SSPX and sedevacantist varieties, but by no means rare among adherents of the FSSP and other groups in communion with Rome, as Fr. Ripperger points out. It’s little wonder that non-Traditionalists are fed up with hearing “clown Mass” over and over again.
While you are correct in stating that not all Traditionalists are like that, those seem to be in the minority, and seem to be disappearing fast.
Sorry, but Traditionalists have a mega PR problem, and it is purely of their own creation.
While you are correct in stating that not all Traditionalists are like that, those seem to be in the minority, and seem to be disappearing fast.
Sorry, but Traditionalists have a mega PR problem, and it is purely of their own creation.
Last edited:
L
Lysander
Guest
I would advise reading Vatican 2 documents in full. Not going by the opinion of someone on the internet about the documents.
F
Fauken
Guest
J
Jbrady
Guest
It was a pretty backhanded way of disparaging the OF. Regardless of the “disclaimer”, the intent was crystal clear.
Last edited:
L
Lysander
Guest
Here is my post 23
So @Emeraldlady, you will flag me for saying one can read the current cathechism with the older ones. Bravo you assumed my view without reading, stop bearing false witness against me.
How is it trying to make a fight? I stated that there is no conflict between the cathechism of before Vatican 2 and the one from after vatican 2. You should stop trying to put words in my mouth.
So @Emeraldlady, you will flag me for saying one can read the current cathechism with the older ones. Bravo you assumed my view without reading, stop bearing false witness against me.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
If I thought the recommendation was really about format I might agree with you.
J
Jbrady
Guest
There is a cute video on Youtube take by a parent of their boy who was told not to set foot outside or else, so the kid is laying on kis belly outside on the patio playing his video game with just his feet inside the sliding door. So year, he didn’t TECHNICALLY set foot outdoors.
Likewise, I think you are playing “poor little old innocent me” here. With kids of my own, I’ve seen the game played thousands of times, enough to recognize it when I see it. And I have seen it played by radical Traditionalists enough, both online and in real life, to know that it is a favorite radical Traditionalist tactic. I’ve seen it done plenty of times on this forum alone, and this forum is far from a radical Traditionalist hangout.
Sorry, but if you expect your explanation to be taken at face value and outside the context of countless previous statements by radical Traditionalists, then you are mistaken.
Likewise, I think you are playing “poor little old innocent me” here. With kids of my own, I’ve seen the game played thousands of times, enough to recognize it when I see it. And I have seen it played by radical Traditionalists enough, both online and in real life, to know that it is a favorite radical Traditionalist tactic. I’ve seen it done plenty of times on this forum alone, and this forum is far from a radical Traditionalist hangout.
Sorry, but if you expect your explanation to be taken at face value and outside the context of countless previous statements by radical Traditionalists, then you are mistaken.
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
What are your credentials to advise a thing not even the official formation of the Church advises? New catechumens are taught from the Catechism we have addressing life in the Church today. Tell the OP why he/she should start with historical documents to form his/her growth in faith. What authority do you have to undermine the official formative process?
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
There is a difference between radical traditionalists and traditionalists. Traditionalists tend to prefer traditional ways of worship and thinking, ie like the Traditional Latin Mass. They may prefer the theology of hundreds of years ago to today. There is a great deal of theological freedom we Catholics have.
However, we should be on guard if there really is “modernism”, as this is a terrible heresy. Indeed, it is the synthesis of all heresy. However, not all things declared as such are really so.
Ultramontanism (as it is often used today, especially on the internet) is supposed to refer to giving too much credence to the pope, acting like the pope is more than he is, as though his every word were utterly inspired or he had powers beyond what he is truly granted by God. A pope only holds infallibility within certain contexts, for example.
Radical so-called traditionalists do seem to push it quite a bit. Many people say things that are quite questionable and suspect, and act very suspiciously of our shepherds.
There is a difference between legitimate doctrinal development (to borrow a description: the implicit become explicit; a calf becomes a cow) and illegitimate doctrinal development (a calf does not become a fish).
However, sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference at the time: imagine poor St Peter when he learned that no animal is to be unclean!
Yes, we should have a sense of trust in Providence in His Way with His Church, and seek to best understand what we do not, and trust in His teaching as passed on from the Apostles.
(Many examples/wording are borrowed!)
However, we should be on guard if there really is “modernism”, as this is a terrible heresy. Indeed, it is the synthesis of all heresy. However, not all things declared as such are really so.
Ultramontanism (as it is often used today, especially on the internet) is supposed to refer to giving too much credence to the pope, acting like the pope is more than he is, as though his every word were utterly inspired or he had powers beyond what he is truly granted by God. A pope only holds infallibility within certain contexts, for example.
Radical so-called traditionalists do seem to push it quite a bit. Many people say things that are quite questionable and suspect, and act very suspiciously of our shepherds.
There is a difference between legitimate doctrinal development (to borrow a description: the implicit become explicit; a calf becomes a cow) and illegitimate doctrinal development (a calf does not become a fish).
However, sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference at the time: imagine poor St Peter when he learned that no animal is to be unclean!
Yes, we should have a sense of trust in Providence in His Way with His Church, and seek to best understand what we do not, and trust in His teaching as passed on from the Apostles.
(Many examples/wording are borrowed!)
Last edited:
- Status